Appeal No. 95-1959
Application 07/894,128
would at least include ease of separation from the reaction
mixture, simplicity of catalyst recovery and easier
regeneration. Moreover, Welborn and Maemoto's respective
disclosures that the particle size of the product obtained may
be controlled by selection of the particle size of the support
for the catalyst serves as additional motivation to use
"finely divided" polyolefin supports and, specifically, the
polypropylene support disclosed by Maemoto.
In our view, appellants have failed to consider what
the prior art relied on by the examiner would have fairly
suggested to the routineer in the art at the time their
invention was made. Rather, appellants have chosen to focus
on the individual references separately for what the
references disclose individually. Such analysis is improper
where, as here, the rejection is founded on a combination of
references.
We have not overlooked appellants' reliance on In re
Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994) for the
proposition that the broad disclosure of polyolefins as
supports in Welborn without exemplification of polypropylene
as a support does not suggest the claimed invention or support
a prima facie case of obviousness. We simply consider Baird
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007