Appeal No. 1996-0684
Application No. 08/116,550
tetrafluoroethane selected from the group consisting of
cobalt, manganese, nickel, palladium, silver and/or ruthenium
but not chromium based catalysts.
In sum, Manzer suggests that the inorganic chromium (III)
catalysts of Ohsaka promote the oxidation of hydrogen chloride
to molecular chlorine and water whereas Manzer's catalysts,
including ruthenium, minimize the oxidation of hydrogen
chloride to molecular chlorine and water. On these facts, we
believe that the only reason, suggestion, or motivation to
combine the ruthenium catalyst of Manzer with the partially
fluorinated chromium oxide catalyst of Ohsaka, in the manner
proposed by the examiner, stems from appellants' specification
and not the cited prior art. In our judgment, the proposed
combination of references is based on the impermissible use of
hindsight and is improper. For this reason, we conclude that
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 8, and 10 based
on the combined disclosures of Manzer and Ohsaka.
Having concluded that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness of claims 1 through 3, 5
through 8, and 10 based on the cited prior art, we shall not
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007