5
4
than “to flush or moisten” or “to wet thoroughly.” Accordingly, the addition of 195 CC of
water added to the dry mixture to form a thick paste is sufficient to meet either of the above
definitions for “washing” as required by the claimed subject matter.
Based upon the above findings, we conclude that in order to arrive at the
claimed subject matter a person having ordinary skill in the art would have to
carefully pick and choose and combine various disclosures among the teachings of
Gladrow ‘818 to obtain the catalyst composition of the claimed subject matter having
each of the physical parameters and process conditions in amounts within the range
claimed. While picking and choosing may be entirely proper in making an obviousness
rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, it has no place in making a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for
anticipation. In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA
1972). Furthermore, We find that Gladrow ‘818 does not provide a disclosure with
sufficient specificity to constitute a description of the claimed composition within the
purview of 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317, 197 USPQ 5, 10 (CCPA 1978).
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the rejection of the claims on appeal under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102 as anticipated by Gladrow ‘818.
Notwithstanding our finding supra regarding anticipation, it should be noted that
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 may be appropriate and proper where the subject
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007