Appeal No. 2001-0784
Application No. 08/755,844
alone a viscosity within the range mandated by appellants’ claims.
Certainly, the comparative example on page 8 of appellants’
specification demonstrates that an aqueous solution of a metal-
containing compound will not necessarily have a viscosity within
the range recited in appellants’ claims.
Additionally, the examiner points to nothing in Jacobs which
would apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of a need to perform
a drying step “without substantial prior draining” of the
impregnating solution from the ceramic foam support, as that
concept is defined in appellants’ specification (paragraph bridging
pages 3 and 4).
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the examiner is
reversed.
Upon further review of the record, we note that appellants’
specification (page 2, lines 18-26) credits European Patent
Application 94 203453.9 (EPA 453.9) with disclosure of both of the
concepts we have found missing from Jacobs. Although EPA ‘453.9
apparently is directed to inorganic oxides, we have no doubt that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have little difficulty
applying the teachings of EPA ‘453.9 to other catalytically active
compounds as well, such as those disclosed in Jacobs, with the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007