Appeal No. 96-0153
Application No. 08/014,407
continue until the NH stored in the catalyst has completely
3
reacted but the addition of NH is resumed when the NO3 x
concentration downstream of the catalyst exceeds a
predetermined threshold value.
The following prior art is relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of obviousness:
Brand et al. 4,963,332 Oct. 16, 1990
The admitted prior art described on pages 1 through 3 of the
appellants' specification.
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
(1) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the appellants regard
as their invention;
(2) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being
based upon a specification disclosure which would
not enable one with ordinary skill in the art to
make and use the here claimed invention; and
(3) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
the admitted prior art in view of Brand.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer
for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed
by the appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007