Appeal 2007-1564 Application 10/611,508 II. DISCUSSION The Anticipation Rejection With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the issue is: Has the Examiner identified something falling within the claimed subject matter that is specific enough to constitute a description of the claimed subject matter within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 102? In order to anticipate, a reference must identify something falling within the claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a description thereof within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 102. See In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317, 197 USPQ 5, 8 (CCPA 1978). Claim 1 is directed to a supported catalyst comprising a porous coating containing the catalyst on a solid support. Claim 13 is directed to a bulk transition metal-containing material catalyst in which the catalyst is contained in a porous solid mass. Davies describes a coating composition applied to metal such as steel and used as a “shop primer” to protect the metal from corroding during construction, e.g. ship building (Davies, col. 1, ll. 11-46 and col. 2, ll. 50-63). The coating is intended to be non-porous as it is for corrosion protection. That it is intended to be non-porous is also evident from the fact that it can contain latex dispersions of organic resins (Davies, col. 3, ll. 46- 64), it can contain binder and pigment so as to fill all the interstices between the particles in a close-packed system (Davies, col. 5, ll. 1-6), and there is no pinholing (Davies, col. 8, ll. 33-59). 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013