Appeal No. 1997-3632 Page 7
Application No. 08/248,565
While Wennerberg does disclose the use of various
catalysts including Group VI and/or Group VIII metal(s) with
activated carbon; there is no specific suggestion in the
patent to pick out: one metal from tungsten or molybdenum; a
non-noble Group VIII metal and chromium in amounts within the
claimed ranges for these catalyst components together with a
carbon support with the properties recited in the appealed
claims from the general teachings of Wennerberg regarding
catalyst preparation and use so as to lead one of ordinary
skill in the art to the herein claimed process catalyst.
Hence, on this record, we do not agree with the examiner’s
position regarding the obviousness of the proposed
modifications of Wennerberg.
We note that the mere fact that the prior art could be
modified as proposed by the examiner is not sufficient to
establish a prima facie case. See In re Fritsch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
determination of obviousness must be based on facts, and not
on unsupported generalities. See In re Freed, 425 F.2d 785,
787, 165 USPQ 570, 571 (CCPA 1970). Moreover, there must be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007