Appeal No. 94-1863
Application 07/832,154
unobvious in choosing some catalysts from among the many disclosed in
a reference.
Appellants urge that the amount of oxide present in van der Wal
is higher than the amount present in their claimed catalyst and that
their claimed catalysts are effective at lower temperatures than the
van der Wal catalysts. These arguments are not considered well
taken. These differences, the amount of oxide present and the
usefulness of appellants' catalyst at low temperatures, are not
recited in appellants' claim 1, upon which dependent claims 2 to 8
and 10 to 16 stand or fall. Since we do not read unrecited
limitations into a claim, such unrecited limitations may not be
relied to
distinguish the claim over a reference. Constant v. Advanced Micro-
Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir.
1988); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA
1969). Even if these limitations were recited in claim 1, which they
are not, appellants have not shown that their claimed catalysts
rendered unexpected results over the catalysts disclosed in
van der Wal.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007