Appeal No. 1997-3094
Application 08/405,279
novel characteristics of appellants’ claimed invention.
Appellants argue that the presence of up to 0.5 g/ft of3
platinum unexpectedly causes suppression of the oxidation of
SO to SO (brief, page 19), and that no evidence of unexpected2 3
results is needed because it would have been unexpected that
appellants’ catalytic material has any of the recited
catalytic activity (reply brief, pages 3-4). This argument is
not persuasive because Wan teaches that high surface area
ceria is believed to serve as a promoter for oxidation-
reduction reactions (Col. 8, lines 11-13) and can either
provide a synergistic effect to the platinum group metal
catalytic component (col. 8, lines 13-15) or can be used in
the absence of a platinum group metal catalytic component
(abstract, first sentence). Thus, it reasonably appears that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected
appellants’ catalyst to have the recited activity. The claims
do not require suppression of the oxidation of SO . To show
2
unexpected results, appellants must provide evidence in the
form of a comparison of appellants’ claimed invention with the
closest prior art, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007