Appeal No. 1996-2077
Application 08/271,922
10 volts at room temperature. Id. The examiner further argues that Moskovits discloses a
method of making an aluminum oxide layer by anodic oxidation of aluminum in an acid
electrolyte, such as 10% sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid “at a current and voltage suitably
2
adjusted to provide a correct film deposition (i.e., 14 mA/cm , 14 V, room temperature).”
Id.
These additional references do nothing to remedy the deficiencies in the rejection
as discussed above. Moreover, contrary to the examiner’s argument, we find no teaching
or suggestion in the applied prior art to employ an anodized aluminum as a catalyst
support having the limitations required by the claims. For example, the examiner has
brushed aside limitations such as the thickness of the anodized surface layer and that the
anodization be performed at a temperature of about 30E-37E C, alleging that they are
result effective variables. Answer, p. 6. However, as pointed out by the appellants, the
teachings of Example 6 demonstrate the criticality of the claimed temperature range on the
performance of the resulting catalyst. We find the examiner’s failure provide a substantive
response to this argument to be improper.
Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
In view of our disposition of this case, a discussion of the examiner’s rejection of
claims 13 and 14 would be superfluous. That is, given our disposition of claim 10, the
claim on which claims 13 and 14 depend, it logically follows that the rejection of these
claims is also reversed since the abstract of JP 52-048594 does not remedy the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007