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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007