Appeal No. 96-3454 Page 5 Application No. 08/260,295 “two or more materials disclosed by the prior art for the same purpose to form a third material that is to be used for the same purpose....” (Final rejection, page 3). The examiner urges that motivation for combining the prior art teachings “comes from the fact that both are directed to the same desulfurization process.” See page 6 of the answer. We cannot agree with the examiner. In our view, the examiner’s reliance on the “same purpose” and “same desulfurization process” as motivation for combining the references is not supported by the applied references. In this regard, we note that Seiver teaches decomposing a catalyst precursor in the presence of a sulfur bearing compound and hydrogen (column 10, lines 35-42) whereas Berrebi discloses loading the catalyst with his disclosed presulfurizing agent in a process step that is carried out in the absence of hydrogen (column 6, lines 9-15). In view of the above and based on the present record, we cannot agree with the examiner that the dissimilar methods of Seiver and Berrebi are directed to the “same desulfurization process” using sulfur containing materials for the “same purpose.”Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007