Appeal No. 96-0153
Application No. 08/014,407
this record, the experimentation required to determine the
upper amount of NH storable in a particular catalyst appears
3
to be straightforward, and the examiner has failed to present
persuasive argument or evidence in support of his position
that the amount of experimentation would be "undue".
In light of the foregoing, we also cannot sustain the
examiner's section 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 1
through 6.
The section 103 rejection
We agree with the appellants that Brand teaches away from
the examiner's proposed combination thereof with the admitted
prior art. Specifically, Brand teaches using a measuring and
regulatory control for adding ammonia to exhaust gas in such a
manner as to avoid ammonia adsorption by the catalyst and the
undesirable effects associated therewith (see lines 34 through
45 in column 1 and lines 17 through 19 in column 4 of the
reference) which is antithetical to the admitted prior art
technique wherein the catalyst is deliberately adsorbed or
loaded with NH . We also agree with the appellants' basic
3
position that neither the admitted prior art nor Brand
contains any teaching or suggestion of the here claimed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007