Appeal No. 1996-3493
Application No. 08/451,697
material may vary widely, with the acidic porous crystalline material content ranging from about 1 to
about 90 weight %, preferably from about 2 to about 50 weight % of the composite (col. 5, lines 16-
21).
According to the examiner, Bergna “does not teach the amounts of materials as claimed or the
use of the specific binders claimed,” but given that “Beck et al. teaches that the amount of binder ... can
be varied,” it “would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of applicant’s claims”
(answer, paragraph bridging pages 3-4). The examiner further concluded that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specifically claimed binders with the catalysts of
Bergna “because of the art recognized functional equivalency of the components taught by Bergna et al.
and Beck et al. (i.e. a matrix material for use with a zeolite catalyst in order to improve heat resistance
to the catalyst)” (answer, page 4, first full paragraph). Moreover, “the art recognized functional
equivalence of the matrices taught by Bergna et al. and Abrams et al. would provide motivation to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have used the alumina [matrix material] in the process of Bergna et al. as
claimed” (answer, page 5, first paragraph).
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, there must be both some suggestion or
motivation to modify the reference or combine reference teachings and a reasonable expectation of
success. Furthermore, the prior art must teach or suggest all the claim limitations.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007