Appeal No. 1998-0556
Application No. 08/367,418
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a thorough
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
This rejection cannot be sustained.
On the third and fourth pages of the answer, the examiner
expresses his basic position as follows:
It 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 Ward by
utilizing a zeolite beta catalyst as suggested by
LaPierre in place of the zeolite catalysts disclosed
by Ward because higher liquid and lower gas yields
result.
It also would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have optimized the Ward process as
modified by LaPierre by optimizing amounts of
ammonia added, optimizing the number of points of
additions, optimizing noble metal amounts, and
optimizing operating temperature ranges because such
optimization has been held to be within the level of
ordinary skill in the art where, as here, the
general conditions of the claims are disclosed.
(See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
the applied prior art must provide a suggestion to modify the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007