Appeal No. 1995-4855
Application No. 08/146,334
expected to remove significant ash content (Request, page 4).
Appellants submit that even if some ash component was
dissolved in the soaking phase, redeposit would occur during
the drying phase (Id.).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive since the
allegation that redeposit would occur during the drying phase
is mere attorney argument and is not supported by any
objective evidence. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43
USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In fact, the water
washing of carbon supports reduces the ash content
significantly as shown by Christoph and Rao. It should also
be noted that the method of preparation of the low ash carbon
supports is not a limitation of the claims on appeal.
Appellants’ third point is that the Board misapprehended
the teaching of Leicester relating to reaction temperature
(Request, page 5). Specifically, appellants argue that the
teaching in Leicester of a minimum temperature of 350EC. for
reacting carbon tetrachloride would not have suggested the
temperature range recited in claim 11 on appeal (Id.).
However, as noted on page 9 of the Decision, Leicester clearly
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007