Ex parte KHARAS et al. - Page 4




          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