Appeal No. 95-4932
Application No. 07/990,216
The significance of Figures 2 and 3 of the reference is
explained in detail in the brief and reply brief. Appellants’
explanation is persuasive and not contradicted by the
examiner.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
Analysis of the teachings in Völker reveals several flaws
in the examiner’s position in regard to the question of
obviousness. As pointed out by appellants, Völker is not
explicity concerned with NO reduction under any particular
x
conditions of the exhaust gas, let alone under lean exhaust
conditions. Additionally, Völker neither teaches nor suggests
that the active catalyst components be selected on the basis
of their characteristic NO reduction temperatures. Rather,
x
in Völker arrangement and choice of catalyst is based
exclusively on the concentration gradient of the active
catalyst component in the direction of flow of the exhaust
gas. In short, Völker is not concerned with the problem of
how to obtain effective reduction of NO over a wide range of
x
exhaust temperatures under lean exhaust conditions, the
underlying problem addressed by the instant claims. Moreover,
the examiner has not explained why the selection of catalyst
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007