Appeal No. 1997-3094
Application 08/405,279
i.e., about 100-800EC, indicates that Rudy’s method is capable
of oxidizing at least some volatile hydrocarbon fraction as
required by appellants’ claim 26. Rudy’s catalyst includes
platinum in an amount which Rudy does not disclose as being
limited. However, because 1) Rudy’s method treats spark
ignition engine exhaust using a catalyst which contains both
of appellants’ bulk ceria and bulk alumina, 2) platinum can be
included in appellants’ catalyst, and 3) Rudy’s operating
temperatures are within the range used by appellants, it
reasonably appears that Rudy’s platinum would not materially
affect the basic and novel characteristics of appellants’
catalytic material.
Appellants argue that minor amounts of a precious metal
can enhance oxidation of oxidizable gaseous components while
minimizing the oxidation of SO to SO (brief, pages 14-15).2 3
This argument is not convincing because appellants’ claims do
not require that SO oxidation is minimized, and no comparison
2
with the closest prior art has been provided which
demonstrates that this characteristic is an unexpected result.
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection over Rudy
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007