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.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007