Appeal No. 94-1863
Application 07/832,154
disclosure is considered in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph.
Adverting to the rejection over van der Wal, we agree with the
examiner for the reasons stated by him that van der Wal renders
obvious the claimed invention. Van der Wal, column 1, lines 7 to 26,
and column 4, lines 31 to 38, and column 8, lines 4 to 15, teaches a
catalyst for removing sulfur compounds from industrial gases
consisting essentially of an inorganic support impregnated with
"mixed oxides of iron with one or more metals of the group consisting
of zinc, copper, cobalt, and of the metals of groups IV to VII of the
periodic table of the elements" (see column 4, lines 36 to 39).
Van der Wal, column 5, lines 1 to 7, exemplifies the use of eight
metal oxides from groups IV to VII, four of which include the metal
oxides exemplified by appellants, i.e., chromium oxide (Cr O ),
2 3
tungsten oxide (WO ), molybdenum oxide (Mo O ), and zinc oxide (ZnO).3 23
Clearly, van der Wal's generic disclosure includes many of the
catalysts embraced by appellants' genus. Appellants do not argue
otherwise, but rather contend that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have to pick and choose from the teachings of van der Wal in
order to arrive at appellants' claimed invention. However, there is
nothing unobvious in choosing some catalysts from among the many
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007