Appeal 2007-4099
Application 09/962,935
in the Evidence Appendix section of the Brief as required by 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(viii) (2004). In fact, the Appellant has indicated “none” at the
Evidence Appendix section of the Brief for the evidence relied upon in the
Brief. Accordingly, we need not consider the Utamapanya literature not
provided by the Appellant.
Even were we to consider the literature evidence in question, our
conclusion would not be altered. As is apparent from our discussion above,
Klabunde teaches forming a pellet from the types of gels recommended by
Utamapanya. Utamapanya does not teach away from employing the pellets
taught by Klabunde or pelletizing adsorbents in the manner taught by
Klabunde. Moreover, the Appellant's reliance on Utamapanya to highlight a
process by which pellets are made is of no moment as the claims on appeal
are directed to a product, i.e., a unit containing an adsorbent/catalyst pellet.
The Appellant has also referred to page 3, paragraphs 0036 and 0037
of the unknown published application as describing the formation of a paste
having highly organized crystalline needle-like structure recovered from an
aqueous suspension (Br. 18). However, the Appellant has not supplied any
copy of this evidence in the Evidence Appendix section of the Brief as
required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(viii) (2004). In fact, as indicated above,
the Appellant has indicated “none” at the Evidence Appendix section of the
Brief for the evidence relied upon in the Brief. Accordingly, we need not
consider the unknown published application not provided by the Appellant.
In any event, the claims on appeal, as broadly recited, do not preclude
crushing the structure in the powder form and shaping the resulting powder.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013