Appeal No. 94-1863
Application 07/832,154
disclosed in van der Wal. Cf. In re Lemin, 332 F.2d 839, 841, 141
USPQ 814, 815 (CCPA 1964). Consequently, we agree with the examiner
that appellants' claimed catalyst is prima facie obvious over
van der Wal.
Appellants urge that their claimed invention is distinguishable
from van der Wal in five respects which we will address seriatim.
Appellants urge that van der Wal does not disclose a single
catalyst in which four or more metal oxides are present whereas at
least four different metal oxides must be present in the claimed
catalyst. This argument is not considered well taken. A reference
must be considered not only for what it expressly teaches, but also
for what it fairly suggests. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1179, 201
USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979). Van der Wal, column 5, lines 1 to 7,
teaches a catalyst containing mixtures of iron oxide with any of
eight metal oxides selected from chromium oxide (Cr O ), manganese
2 3
oxide (MnO ), vadium oxide (V O ), tungsten oxide (WO ), molybdenum2 2 3 3
oxide (Mo O ), titanium oxide (TiO ), zinc oxide (ZnO), and zirconium2 3 2
oxide (ZrO ). In making the selections, van der Wal, column 5, lines
2
8 to 17, gives the caveat that Cr, Ti and Zr should not be combined
together because they form a stable non-reactive oxide not suitable
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007