Appeal No. 95-4932
Application No. 07/990,216
The examiner’s case for nonenablement is based on an
assertion that determination of a NO reduction “temperature
x
window” for any particular catalyst would involve undue
experimentation in view of the unpredictable nature of
catalysts, viz., the activity of each catalyst must be
determined empirically. Thus, according to the examiner, the
involved specification is enabling only for the particular
catalytic components specifically exemplified in the
disclosure. We disagree.
As pointed out by appellants, the examiner has not
established that undue experimentation would be involved in
selecting a particular catalytic component based on evaluation
of its temperature dependent activity. A broad assertion of
unpredictability, without more, is not dispositive on the
question of “undue experimentation.” See Ex parte Forman, 230
USPQ 546, 547 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1986).
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Rejection
We agree with appellants that Subramanian does not
anticipate the multi-component catalyst of claim 1. The
examiner does not dispute appellants’ assertion that the air-
fuel ratio of above about 18/1, as specified in the claim,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007