Appeal No. 96-3486
Application No. 08/291,565
All the evidence of nonobviousness must be carefully
weighed in deciding whether a prima facie case of
obviousness has been overcome.
The Declaration5 under 37 CFR § 1.132 (Paper No. 19,
filed February 23, 1996) seeks to distinguish the claimed
invention over the prior art on two grounds:
a) as demonstrated in Experiment I, the use of
Brunelle’s pseudo-boehmite instead of a
crystalline alumina yields a catalyst with
inferior efficiency toward reducing carbon
monoxide pollutants; and
b) as demonstrated in Experiment II, the pollutant-
conversion performance of a catalyst possessing a
coating made from an atomized suspension of cerium
nitrate and gamma-type alumina, followed by ferric
nitrate impregnation, as suggested by Koberstein,
is less effective than one prepared in accordance
with the claimed methods; that is, when the iron
compound is incorporated along with the cerium
salt and crystalline alumina oxide into the
aqueous suspension that is subsequently atomized.
would have been characterized as strong or weak, the
examiner must consider all of the evidence anew.” In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1742-73, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed.
Cir. 1984).
5 This refers to the second declaration. Due to an
apparent copying error, the first declaration was filed
(Paper No. 16, filed January 16, 1996) absent results for
Experiment I. Examiner’s response (Advisory Action, Paper
No. 17, mailed February 5, 1996) to this Declaration was
based on incomplete information.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007