Appeal No. 1996-3367 Page 10
Application No. 08/480,554
1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 778 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's § 103
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 as unpatentable over
Böttger in view of Berkowitz and Di Fiore.4
Rejection of Claim 2
With respect to dependent claim 2, appellants (brief,
page 9) further argues, in effect, that the applied prior art
would not have suggested a ratio of sodium chloride to iron
chloride from 0.3 to 0.45. As set forth above, however,
Böttger discloses such a ratio (0.33) in Example 2. For the
reasons set forth above regarding appellants' Example 2, the
additional Examples 3 and 4 are likewise unconvincing of
unexpected results or the lack of maintenance of a ratio
within the claimed range during the reaction in Böttger.
While appellants assert in the brief (page 6) that the ratio
of Example 2 of Böttger is correctly 0.28, such assertion has
4Since we find the disclosure of Böttger sufficient to
sustain the examiner's stated rejection of this grouping of
claims, we find that it is unnecessary to discuss the
additional teachings of Berkowitz and Di Fiore.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007