Appeal No. 97-0268
Application No. 07/991,872
For the reasons set forth in the answer and below,
we will sustain this rejection.
Miller discloses a catalyst for reforming processes
including dehydrogenation (e.g., see lines 8-20 in column 1).
This catalyst, like that defined by appealed independent claim
32, comprises a noble metal such as platinum or palladium
(e.g., see line 15-17 in column 3 and lines 28 - 30 in column
14), an intermediate pore size crystalline silicate such as
zeolite (e.g., see line 18 in column 3, lines 3-6 in column 13
and the paragraphs bridging column 13 and 14), having a silica
to alumina ratio of at least 200 (e.g., see line 19 in column
3), a crystallite size of less than 10 microns (e.g., see
lines 64 and 65 in column 3) and an alkali to alumina ratio
between 1 and 5 parts on a molar basis (e.g., see lines 44-47
in column 4). Thus, Miller discloses a class of catalyst
which includes a dehydrogenation catalyst that corresponds to
the catalyst defined by the independent claim on appeal.
The appellant argues that "one of ordinary skill in the
art would not find Appellant's light paraffin dehydrogenation
catalyst obvious in view of the Miller '813 catalyst" (brief,
page 7). This argument is unpersuasive for a number of
reasons.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007