Appeal No. 95-2734
Application 07/952,060
We cannot agree with the appellants’ basic position that Wyatt would not have
suggested the claim 1 feature of a basic metal oxide present as a separate layer in
juxtaposed relation to the tungsten oxide. Patentee explicitly teaches forming a
refractory oxide washcoat in the form of a layer from compounds which correspond to
the here claimed basic metal oxide. Moreover, as a result of patentee’s previously
mentioned deposition and firing technique, this oxide layer would be separate and in
3
juxtaposed relation to the tungsten oxide deposited thereon. Finally, it is our
perspective that this catalyst preparation technique would necessarily result in all of the
barium oxide or lanthanum oxide being present as the separate layer, thereby
satisfying the “at least 51 percent” requirement of the appellants’ claim 1.
For the above stated reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection over
Wyatt of independent claim 1 and of nonargued dependent claims 2 through 5. We will
also sustain the § 103 rejection over Wyatt of process claims 12 through 14 and 17
which correspond to catalyst claims 1 through 5.
As previously explained, the § 102 rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, and 12
through 14 cannot be sustained. In addition, we also cannot sustain either the § 102
rejection of claims 6, 9, 11, 15, and 18 or the § 103 rejection of claims 6 through 11, 15,
3Appealed claim 1 does not require that the ingredients therein be arranged in
any particular order and therefore encompasses a catalyst wherein the tungsten oxide
is deposited on the separate basic metal oxide layer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007