Appeal No. 1997-3632 Page 4
Application No. 08/248,565
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Wennerberg et al. (Wennerberg) 3,812,028 May 21,
1974
Claims 2-4, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Wennerberg.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the respective positions
presented by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we
find our- selves in agreement with appellants that the applied
prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
advanced by appellants, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
The examiner asserts, in effect, that it would have been
obvious to select a catalyst as claimed in light of the more
general teachings of Wennerberg and optimize the process of
the patent to arrive at the pressure conditions and amounts of
metals used in appellants’ catalyst. This is so in the
examiner’s view "since it is well known in the art to adjust
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007