Appeal No. 2001-0784
Application No. 08/755,844
Accordingly, we shall limit our consideration to claim 1, the sole
independent claim, which reads as follows:
1. A process for the preparation of a ceramic foam support
supporting at least one catalytically active component or precursor
thereof, which component is active in a form other than an
inorganic oxide, the process comprising impregnation of the ceramic
foam containing pores with an impregnating phase comprising the
catalytically active component or a precursor thereof and drying,
wherein the impregnating phase has a viscosity of from 5 to 80 cps,
wherein drying is performed without substantial prior draining of
impregnating phase from the ceramic foam, and wherein the
catalytically active component or precursor thereof is present
throughout the preparation process in one or more forms other than
the inorganic oxide thereof.
All of the appealed claims stand rejected for obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon the following single prior art
reference:
Jacobs et al. (Jacobs) 5,510,056 Apr. 23, 1996
(effective filing date: Nov. 29, 1994)
We have carefully considered the entire record on appeal in
light of the opposing positions taken by the appellants and by the
examiner. Having done so, we agree with the appellants that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
as to the claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we shall reverse the rejection at issue
essentially for the reasons advanced by appellants. Suffice it to
say that we find nothing in Jacobs which would teach or suggest
using an impregnation solution having any particular viscosity, let
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007