Ex Parte Bottcher et al - Page 9

                Appeal 2007-0736                                                                                
                Application 10/480,239                                                                          
                       22.  The results obtained provide some evidence that catalysts A and                     
                B, made from a nitrate and on an inert support, produced a slightly greater                     
                proportion of hydrogenated aromatic groups than the comparative catalyst,                       
                made from a chloride and not on an inert support.  (Spec. 15; FFs 20-21.)                       
                       23.  Appellants’ data do not evidence any unexpected results                             
                sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, as                       
                no comparison was made with the closest prior art teachings-- teachings                         
                which employ ruthenium metal on an inert carrier which can be silicon                           
                dioxide.  (Shokal, col. 6, ll. 1-12 & col. 11, ll. 56-68.)                                      
                       24.  The skilled artisan would have expected Appellants’ comparative                     
                example to produce inferior results to those of Examples A and B in that the                    
                use of ruthenium chloride as the starting material could produce chlorine (or                   
                chloride ion) thereby possibly poisoning the ruthenium catalyst.  (See FF                       
                13.)                                                                                            

                                                DISCUSSION                                                      
                       Based on our findings and those of the Examiner, we conclude the                         
                Examiner has made a prima facie case of obviousness under § 103(a) of the                       
                subject matter of claim 1, based on the combined teachings of Schuster,                         
                Shokal, and Setoyama.  As we interpret claim 1 (FFs 1-5), all of the                            
                limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in the cited prior art (FFs 6-14), with the                
                exception of “halogen-free aqueous solution” (FF 13).  With respect to this                     
                limitation, the skilled artisan would have recognized the advantages of using                   
                such a solution in view of the prior art teachings and the general knowledge                    
                in the art.  (See id.)                                                                          



                                                       9                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013