Appeal No. 1997-2947
Application No. 08/352,079
pressure within the converter. Accordingly, Abe suggests that the distance between the catalyst
and the adsorption catalyst is a result effective variable.
Appellants contend that the catalyst layer of claim 7 provides improved and unexpected
adsorption functions. Specifically, appellants state that it was not known until the present
invention that the metal may be carried on the zeolite layer in order to improve the hydrocarbon
adsorption performance of the zeolite layer. Yet, as noted above, Abe exemplifies a zeolite
adsorbent composed of a honeycomb carrier having a coating of alumina and ceria on which
platinum and rhodium were loaded by impregnation. (Abe, Example 3). Further, appellants
have failed to cite any persuasive evidence of this alleged unexpected improvement in
hydrocarbon adsorption. Failing to distinguish the teachings of Abe and/or present persuasive
evidence of unexpected results, appellants have failed to overcome the examiner’s prima facie
case of obviousness.
We note that claim 8 is directed to the amount of metal carried on the zeolite layer of the
adsorption catalyst. This claim was rejected as unpatentable Patil or Dunne in view of Abe. As
discussed above, we affirm the rejection of claims 6-8 and 11-12 over Abe alone. As the
adsorption catalyst teachings of Patil and Dunne are consistent with those of Abe, we affirm the
rejection of claim 8 over Patil or Dunne in view of Abe.
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007