Ex parte KHARAS et al. - Page 6

          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                       
                         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                 
          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,                
          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               
          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                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007