Appeal No. 1997-0183
Application 08/206,623
From these teachings of Kaiser, it is clear that the acidic
functionality that is neutralized by the alkali or alkaline
earth compound results from the Group VIII metal admixed with
Group IB metal on the alumina support, i.e., the mixed metal
catalyst (see col. 2, ll. 14-15; col. 3, ll. 39-43). Thus
there is no teaching, motivation or suggestion in Kaiser to
treat the alumina support per se with the neutralizing agent
to form the modified support required by part (a) of claim 1
on appeal. The examiner has not pointed to any disclosure or
teachings in Kaiser or
supplied convincing reasons that the support per se contains
acidic functionalities that must be neutralized or that
pretreating the support with the neutralizing agent would
subsequently neutralize the acidic functionalities present in
the later impregnation of Group VIII and IB catalyst metals.
Accordingly, the teachings of Kaiser do not support the
examiner’s “obvious choice” position. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d
900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(“The mere fact
that the prior art could be so modified would not have made
the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. [Citations omitted].”).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007