Appeal No. 1997-1536
Application 08/342,817
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 5.
THE REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 AND 103
Although stated as separate rejections, the rejection of
claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and on the grounds
of the judicially created doctrine of obviousness double
patenting over Hayden considered with Bearden are founded on
the same rationale. The stated rationale is that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
have further included sucrose in the process disclosed by
Hayden, which differs from the claimed process in not
requiring sucrose or fructose in combination with urea for
treating carbonaceous chars prepared from bituminous coal,
because Bearden discloses "mixing a material such as sucrose
and Cr with a bituminous/coal material in order to make a more
effective catalyst material." See page 3 of the Answer.
The examiner has concluded that it would have been
obvious to further include sucrose in Hayden's process
"because doing so provides the `carbonaceous char having
catalytic activity' required by Hayden claim 1." Id.
Nevertheless, nothing in Hayden teaches or suggests that the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007