Appeal No. 1999-2548
Application No. 08/648,236
contaminating metals from zeolite catalyst and that the
reference evidence adduced by the examiner does not establish
a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
elimination of this step. In light of this circumstance and
because we interpret claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13
through 15, 21 through 27, 50 through 52, 54 and 55 as
excluding the aforementioned step, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s section 103 rejection of these claims as being
unpatentable over Suggitt in view of Bertus, Readal and
Japanese ‘406. Analogous reasoning leads to the determination
that we also cannot sustain the examiner’s corresponding
rejection of claims 11 and 53 as being unpatentable over these
references and further in view of Corneil. By way of
clarifying this last mentioned point, the examiner does not
urge (and we do not consider) that Corneil supplies the
evidentiary deficiency previously mentioned with respect to
Suggitt.
We reach a different conclusion regarding appealed claims
35 through 39 and 41 through 45. This is because we find
nothing and the appellants point to nothing in these claims
which excludes the above discussed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007