Appeal No. 1999-2548
Application No. 08/648,236
chlorination/demetallization step of Suggitt. For this
reason, and because we agree with the examiner that it would
have been obvious to provide Suggitt’s catalyst with a
passivating metal such as antimony, it is appropriate to
sustain the examiner’s section 103 rejection of claims 35
through 39 and 41 through 45 as being unpatentable over
Suggitt in view of Bertus, Readal and Japanese ‘406.
Concerning the section 103 rejection based upon Corneil
as a primary reference, the examiner concludes, inter alia,
that “[i]t . . . would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have modified the process of Corneil by substituting a
zeolite catalyst for those disclosed by Corneil because
zeolite catalysts are effective in cracking processes and are
disclosed by Suggitt and Cimbalo to benefit from the
sequential oxidation-reduction steps of Corneil” (answer, page
11). From our perspective, however, the here applied
references would not have suggested this proposed
modification based upon a reasonable expectation of success.
In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904, 7 USPQ2d 1673, 1680-
1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007