Appeal No. 2000-1111
Application 08/881,969
space is defined between the side walls for receiving the particulate catalyst
component. (Appeal Brief, page 1, line 14 - page 2, line 6).
The §103 Rejection over Adams alone or with Smith
Claims 1 and 4-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Adams taken only or with Smith. More specifically, the Examiner has found that
Adams teaches using packing elements with the catalyst carried inside of the element.
The Examiner then concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to make the packing element of Adams in a known structure such as a saddle.
(Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 6-8). The Examiner further has found that Smith
teaches using different packing structures with a catalyst carried internally, which
suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that other, known packing structures can be
used in the device of Adams. Finally, the Examiner has found that it would have been
obvious to make the saddle in two parts (an inner and an outer part) that fit together for
ease of manufacture. (Examiner’s Answer, page 4, lines 8-12).
The Appellants, on the other hand, state that none of the applied references of
record, when considered either singularly or in combination with one another, show or
suggest a saddle-shaped packing structure as recited in the claims. More specifically,
the Appellants argue that nothing in the Adams reference teaches a porous
semicylindrical side wall wherein the side walls are spaced form each other to define an
interior space within which a catalyst component is retained (Appeal Brief, page 5, line
26 - page 6, line 12).
The burden is upon the Examiner to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175, 37 USPQ2d 1578, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Findings
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007