Appeal No. 1999-0058
Application No. 08/701,878
nickel chloride, as we have discussed above. While the
appellants would have us believe that Bournonville's disclosure
is limited to its working examples, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have considered the reference in its entirety,
including the description of the preferred embodiments. Merck &
Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d
1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794
n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d
747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976).
Relying on Examples 1-4 as described in the specification
(pages 12-19), the appellants allege that "introduction of
chlorine through a hexachloroplatinic acid solution provides an
unexpected advantage over catalysts where platinum is introduced
by an organic solution containing no chlorine..." (Appeal brief,
page 6.) We do not find the relied upon evidence to be
persuasive.
In Example 1 of the appellants' specification, the control
catalyst (catalyst A) is said to be prepared by impregnating a
solution of platinum bisacetylacetonate in toluene onto calcined,
pretreated alumina.5 By contrast, Bournonville describes the use
of an aqueous solution of nickel chloride (column 3, lines 6-7,
41) and, in the working examples, an ammonia solution of nickel
acetate. Both the aqueous solution of nickel chloride and the
5 The data relating to control catalyst D (Example 3) has
little, if any, probative value because the catalyst is prepared
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007