Ex parte DALY et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-0183                                                        
          Application 08/206,623                                                      


               According to appellants, the invention is directed to a                
          method of making a catalyst and the catalyst product useful in              
          the reaction of sodium chlorite to produce chlorine dioxide,                
          wherein the outside edge of the catalyst support is                         
          impregnated with palladium or another platinum group metal and              
          the catalyst support is modified by a Group IA carbonate,                   
          Group IIA carbonate, or MgO (Brief, pages 2-3).  Illustrative               
          claim 1 is reproduced below:                                                
               1.  A catalyst having an exterior surface comprising                   
          palladium for producing chlorine dioxide, consisting                        
          essentially of a catalyst support selected from the group                   
          consisting of (a) a support modified by a Group IA carbonate                
          salt or a Group IIA carbonate salt or MgO and (b) a support                 
          consisting of a Group IA carbonate salt or a Group IIA                      
          carbonate salt or MgO, wherein the exterior surface of said                 
          catalyst support is impregnated with palladium or palladium                 
          and another platinum group metal or palladium and a Group IB                
          metal.                                                                      
               The examiner has relied upon the following reference as                
          evidence of obviousness:                                                    
          Kaiser                3,974,102              Aug. 10, 1976                  
               Claims 1 through 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103               
          as unpatentable over Kaiser (Answer, page 3).  We reverse the               
          examiner’s decision for reasons which follow.                               
          OPINION                                                                     


                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007