Appeal No. 1996-3493
Application No. 08/451,697
specification, i.e., an “attrition resistant” catalyst composition, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1681 (Fed. Cir.1988).
Therefore, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness as to claims 1-6 and 17 which all require an “attrition resistant” catalyst composition, i.e., a
catalyst composition having an attrition ratio less than or equal to 3 as defined by the specification.
Having concluded that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness, we
do not reach the rebuttal evidence of unexpected results discussed on pages 9-11 of the brief.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bergna in view of Abrams or Beck is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
REVERSED
SHERMAN D. WINTERS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007