Appeal No. 2000-1869
Application No. 08/922,478
that this pressure “would not be much different” than the claimed
atmospheric pressure given experimental error. Id.
The examiner finds that the claims of S.N. 08/606,679
“overlap in scope of subject matter claimed.” (Answer, page 5).
Similarly, the examiner finds that the claims of S.N. 08/730,217
“overlap in scope of subject matter claimed.” Id.
The claims on appeal require that the transition alumina is
obtained by calcination of aluminum hydroxide, which in turn is
prepared by hydrolysis of aluminum isopropoxide (e.g., see claim
1 on appeal). On this record, the examiner has not presented any
factual findings from any applied reference by citing any
disclosure or suggestion (or pointed to any claimed subject
matter of copending applications S.N. 08/606,679 or S.N.
08/730,217) regarding the first step in the claimed process,
i.e., the hydrolysis of aluminum isopropoxide to form aluminum
hydroxide (see the findings discussed above and the Answer in its
entirety). On this record, the examiner has not taken notice or
cited evidence that the hydrolysis of aluminum isopropoxide to
form aluminum hydroxide is conventional or well known in the art
(id.). As correctly argued by appellants, the teachings of the
applied references and the claims of the cited applications do
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007