Appeal No. 1997-0183
Application 08/206,623
support with the alkali metal would have provided greater
control over the acidity of the final product.” (Id.). This
position is in contrast to the examiner’s position elsewhere
in the Answer that “the sequence of addition of the alkali or
alkaline earth metal to the support is not patentably
significant” (Answer, page 3) and “the point at which the
alkali or alkaline earth metal is added to the support is an
obvious choice.” (Answer, page 4).
We find no support for either of the examiner’s positions
in the record before us. The examiner cites no evidence or
convincing reasons to support his first position that
pretreatment of the support with an alkali or alkaline earth
compound would have accomplished the goals of Kaiser, namely
neutralization of any acidic functionalities (see Kaiser, col.
3, ll. 39-49). The examiner likewise fails to cite any
evidence or convincing reasons why such preimpregnation of the
support with alkali metal would have provided greater control
over the acidity of the final product.
Regarding the examiner’s second position that the
sequence of addition of the alkali or alkaline earth metal
compounds “is not patentably significant “ or is “an obvious
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007