Appeal 2007-4100
Application 09/962,971
pelletized, rather than powder, hydroxide is more convenient
due to its lower volume….Overall the palletizing is very
beneficial as it preserves surface area/unit mass, decreases the
volume, and minimizes the static nature of the powder, making
it easier to handle the adsorbent.
…
Fig. 1 graphically illustrates the adsorption of acetaldehyde on
powder and palletized samples of AP-MgO. Over a period of
twenty hours, the efficiency of adsorption on the two samples
was very similar.
We find that Klabunde as a whole teaches that it is desirable to pelletize the
granular composition of the type discussed in Benjamin. Consequently, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
As a rebuttal to the prima facie case, the Appellants have referred to
the Utamapanya literature (Utamapanya et al., Chem. Mater., 3:175-181
(1991)), an unknown published application, and a Rule 132 Declaration
executed by Mr. Schlegel (one of the inventors listed in this application) as
evidence of non-obviousness (Br. 12-15).
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether the Appellants’
reference to Utamapanya, the unknown published application, and the
Schlegel Declaration rebuts the prima facie case established by the
Examiner. On this record, we answer this question in the negative.
Initially, we note that the Appellants have referred to Utamapanya as
teaching against using an aqueous suspension to prepare a pellet (Br. 12).
However, the Appellants have not supplied any copy of this literature
evidence in the Evidence Appendix section of the Brief as required by
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013