Appeal No. 1997-1793
Application No. 08/528,044
recited in appealed claim 2. In addition, we note that2
Hattori teaches a surface area of 62 m /g for “Fe O -TiO (1/9),” 2 2 3 2
which satisfies the claim element with respect to surface
area. As we have discussed above, Hattori teaches that the
precipitated binary oxides, which have the same surface areas
as the appellants’ claimed catalyst powders (appealed claims
2, 5, and 9), are useful as catalysts for the decomposition of
2-butanol (page 3208; Table 4, page 3212).
In contrast to the subject matter of appealed claim 2 or
5, which recites a product prepared by flame hydrolysis,
Hattori teaches that the disclosed binary oxides are produced
by a coprecipitation method involving the steps of subjecting
a mixed solution of ferric nitrate and titanium tetrachloride
to hydrolysis with aqueous ammonia at a pH of 8-9 to form a
precipitate, washing the precipitate with deionized water,
drying the precipitate at 100EC for 20-30 hours, and then
2If the percentages described for the compositions in
Hattori’s Table 1 are on total molar basis, the product
identified as “Fe O -TiO (1/9)” would contain about 18.2 wt.%
2 3 2
of iron oxide. (We arrive at this calculation based on our
observation that the molecular weights for Fe O and TiO are 2 3 2
159.7 g/mol and 79.9 g/mol, respectively.) On the other hand,
if the percentages are on total weight basis, the product
would obviously contain 10 wt.% of iron oxide. Either way,
Hattori’s disclosed product appears to meet the claim element
with respect to the iron oxide content.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007