Ex parte LAINE et al. - Page 3


                  Appeal No. 1996-3457                                                                                                                    
                  Application 08/200,595                                                                                                                  

                  pertaining to hydrocarbon cracking in certain specification Examples, in submitting that “the general                                   
                  knowledge in the prior art regarding cracking processes is such that when taken with the albeit limited                                 
                  discussion in appellants’ disclosure, it would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the                                  
                  invention without undue experimentation” (brief, page 3).  Appellants further contend that from this                                    
                  disclosure, “it is apparent that the catalysts [of the claimed compositions] are useful in catalytic cracking                           
                  processes” (id., pages 3-4).  In response, the examiner alleges that “the catalyst composition utilized in                              
                  EP 0 385 246 is not the same as that utilized in the claimed invention” and that the specification                                      
                  Examples do “not indicate or disclose any process conditions or parameters” (answer, pages 4-5).                                        
                           We must agree with appellants.  Indeed, it is clear from the disclosure that appellants rely on                                
                  the citation of EP 0 385 246 to establish that “fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) catalysts that contain a                                 
                  bayerite/eta alumina component” are known and that appellants further disclose that certain problems                                    
                  are presented when such fluid catalytic cracking catalysts are used “in commercial FCC cracking                                         
                  units,” which are the problems addressed by appellants through the disclosed and claimed invention                                      
                  (specification, pages 2-3, emphasis supplied; see also pages 5-6 and specification Examples 5-7).                                       
                  Thus, in order to make out a prima facie case under this section of the statute, the examiner must show                                 
                  that one of ordinary skill in the hydrocarbon cracking arts could not practice the claimed invention                                    
                  based on the information supplied in appellants’ disclosure without undue experimentation, which                                        
                  requires more evidence than merely pointing out that specific “process conditions or parameters” have                                   
                  not been disclosed.                                                                                                                     
                           The examiner’s decision is reversed.                                                                                           
                                                                       Reversed                                                                           



                                             JOHN D. SMITH                                         )                                                      
                                             Administrative Patent Judge                           )                                                      
                                                                                                   )                                                      
                                                                                                   )                                                      
                                                                                                   )                                                      
                                             CHARLES F. WARREN                                     )   BOARD OF PATENT                                    

                                                                          - 3 -                                                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007