Appeal No. 94-3447
Application 07/864,725
the art would not have been motivated to replace the catalytic
matrix of Pinneo with the powdered metal promoter of Holcombe to
result in a fluidized bed comprising particles of different
materials. The catalyst of Pinneo is a hydrogenation catalyst
which dissociates molecular hydrogen, whereas the reactions
disclosed by Holcombe (column 2, lines 50-57) do not involve the
disassociation of molecular hydrogen. As urged by appellants,
the nickel or iron promoter metal of Holcombe is employed to
shorten the reaction time between carbon tetrafluoride and either
silicon carbide or methyl trichlorosilane. While the examiner
makes the argument that “the catalysts/promoters of the two
references are both added to increase the yield in the fluidized
deposition of diamond” (page 5 of Answer), the much more relevant
point is that the two references involve distinctly different
reactions. The examiner has not established that the metal
promoted reaction of Holcombe would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the use of Holcombe’s metal promoters
as hydrogenation catalysts in the reaction of Pinneo.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 2 and 11-15.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-10 and 16-18 is affirmed. The
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007