Appeal No. 94-4217
Application 07/853,663
given temperature range and, with respect to a threshold
temperature within that range, of being rapidly inactivated
when exposed to high carbon monoxide concentrations above the
threshold temperature as well as incapable of reducing the
carbon monoxide concentration to the minimum level when
exposed to carbon monoxide below the threshold temperature.
Such a reading is clearly consistent with the specification
which recites the same definition (page 4) and discloses a
catalyst in the same terms that has a threshold temperature of
“about 220EF” (pages 10 and 13). Accordingly, we reverse the
ground of rejection based on ' 112, second paragraph.
Turning now to the ground of rejection based on ' 103, we
have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based
thereon conclude that the examiner has failed to establish
that Brown in its entirety would have reasonably suggested the
method of appealed claim 1 as a whole to one of ordinary skill
in this art at the time the claimed invention was made and
thus has not made out a prima facie case of obviousness.
In comparing the claimed invention as a whole with the
teachings of Brown, we observe that appellants have described
the “threshold temperature” as being a single temperature
point within a range. They have used this same language to
describe the disclosure of Brown in their specification (pages
1-3). However, it is apparent to us that Brown discloses a
general “selectivity zone” for catalysts that can be used to
selectively oxidize carbon monoxide which is a temperature
range of 266EF to 320EF. that can vary with variations in the
oxygen concentration and falls within the temperature range of
250E to 350EF suggested for the catalyst bed of the first
stage of the proposed two stage reactor (pages 842, col. 3,
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007