Appeal No. 1997-3094
Application 08/405,279
catalytic components were eliminated, the catalyst composition
would not include the bulk ceria and bulk second metal oxide
required by appellants’
claim 25. Hence, the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness of the method recited in claim 25
over Rudy in view of Bedford.
Rejection of claim 26 over Wan
Appellants argue that Wan’s catalyst was conventionally
known in the art for use in treating exhaust streams
containing hydrocarbons, CO and NO , and that Wan would not
x
have suggested using the catalyst to treat diesel exhaust
streams which contain volatile organic fractions or SO2
(brief, page 18). We do not find this argument to be
convincing because, as indicated by appellants (specification,
page 1), diesel exhaust also contains hydrocarbons and CO,
which are two components which Wan removes using his catalyst.
The fact that Wan’s disclosed treatment temperature of 400EC
(col. 14, line 60) is within appellants’ range of about 100-
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007