Ex parte SEXTL et al. - Page 9

          Appeal No. 1997-1549                                                        
          Application No. 08/208,143                                                  

          no convincing reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the              
          art would have been led by the applied references to use                    
          Plank’s temperature, which is an activation temperature for a               
          cracking catalyst, as the temperature used for forming                      
          Gloffre’s shaped molecular sieves.  The examiner argues that                
          Plank is directed toward an adsorbent composition (answer,                  
          page 12), but this is not correct.  What Plank discloses is a               
          cracking catalyst (col. 1, lines 14-16).  Moreover, the                     
          highest temperature disclosed by Plank is 1500EF (816EC).  The              
          examiner has not explained why calcining Gloffre’s molecular                
          sieves at this temperature would produce the breaking strength              
          obtained by appellants at 850-1100EC.                                       
               For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has               
          not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of                
          obviousness of the invention recited in any of appellants’                  
          claims.  Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection                   
          under 35 U.S.C.  103.                                                      


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007