Appeal No. 1998-2623
Application No. 08/677,062
the only disclosure or teaching in Fiske would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art towards relatively low amounts of
chromium and high amounts of aluminum, i.e., away from the
claimed atom percents. See generally In re Baird, 16 F.3d
380, 383, 29 USPQ2d 1550, 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Additionally, the claims on appeal recite a “multiphase”
catalyst composition “wherein phases of said crystalline
fluorides are homogeneously dispersed with phases of said
chromium fluoride.” See claim 3 on appeal. Fiske discloses
coating or impregnating alumina with a nickel or chromium
compound to produce a catalyst or that “a granular metal
fluoride or mixture of metal fluorides can be used directly as
the catalyst.” (Col. 2, ll. 21-26). The examiner has not
established that the disclosure of these methods of
preparation in Fiske would have suggested this claim
limitation to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention (see the Answer, page 6).
We recognize that the examiner bears a lesser burden of
proof to establish a prima facie case of obviousness for
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007