Appeal No. 2000-0073
Application No. 08/883,716
Brazdil ‘016 discloses the preparation of mixed metal oxides using an aqueous slurry
process. (Answer, p. 3, ll. 17 to 20). The Examiner asserts that preparing the catalyst of
Brazdil ‘588 using the aqueous slurry method of catalyst preparation as described in Brazdil
‘016 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because it is a known
method. (Answer, p. 4, ll. 7 to 10).
The claimed invention requires the formation of a first aqueous slurry which does
not contain all the support material, drying the slurry and calcining to form a catalyst
precursor. The catalyst precursor is then combined with the remaining portion of the
support material to form a second slurry which is subsequently dried and calcined to form
the finished catalyst. Brazdil ‘016 does not describe a process where the support material
is combined with the catalyst material in two separate steps as required by the claimed
invention. Thus, the combination of Brazdil ‘588 and ‘016, as proposed by the Examiner,
would not have led the skilled artisan to the presently claimed invention. Consequently, the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness on the present record.
For the above reasons and those stated in the Brief, we determine that the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is not supported by facts. “Where the legal
conclusion [of obviousness] is not supported by facts it cannot stand.” In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly, the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 to 13 over the combination of Brazdil ‘016 and ‘588 is reversed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007