Appeal No. 1998-2623
Application No. 08/677,062
We reverse both of the examiner’s rejections for reasons which
follow.
OPINION
The examiner construes the claims as requiring a catalyst
consisting essentially of chromium fluoride and a specified
crystalline metal fluoride where the atom percent of chromium
is at least equal to the atom percent of the crystalline metal
fluoride and the phases of the crystalline metal fluoride are
homogeneously dispersed with the phases of chromium fluoride
(Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3-4). The examiner
recognizes that claims 2 and 10 are drafted in product-by-
process form (Answer, page 4).
The examiner finds that a difference between the claimed
invention and Fiske is that Fiske does not disclose any
specific atom percent ratio of chromium to fluoride metals
(Id.). The examiner concludes that “since the ratio of
chromium fluoride to aluminum fluoride is not limited by the
broad disclosure of Fisk [sic, Fiske] et al.(4,147,733),
appellants [sic, appellants’] claimed ratio is considered to
this decision we refer to the sole reference by the correct
name of “Fiske.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007