Appeal No. 1996-3674
Application No. 08/451,826
or equal to 3, i.e., is “attrition resistant” as explicitly defined in the specification. Moreover, we do not
find the examiner’s reliance on In re Durden, 763 F.2d 1046, 226 USPQ 359 (answer, page 7) well
founded for reasons fully explained in, for example, In re Brouwer, 77 F.3d 422, 37 USPQ2d 1663
(Fed. Cir. 1996) and In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 37 USPQ2d 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Secondly, viewing the invention as a whole, we find that neither Bergna, Abrams, Beck nor
THE CONDENSED CHEMICAL DICTIONARY provide sufficient guidance or direction to enable
one of ordinary skill in the art to select the particular combination of rho and/or chabazite acidic zeolites
with only certain specific particulate binders to provide a catalyst composition having an attrition ratio
less than or equal to 3 as defined in the 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 7-11 and 14 which all require a process for production of 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 10-12 of the brief.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007