Appeal No. 2001-2491 Page 4
Application No. 09/168,564
the reaction (Perego at claim 1; Wittenbrink at col. 2, ll. 62-63 and col. 3, ll. 38-60; Achia at 3, ll.
54-56).
While claim 1 requires that the mixture of metals in the catalyst contain a Group VIB
metal along with a Group VIII metal, the claims of Perego specify only the use of a Group VIII
metal. However, both Wittenbrink and Achia describe using either a Group VIII metal or a Group
VIB metal or a mixture thereof on a silica-alumina carrier to catalyze the hydroisomerization
reaction (Wittenbrink at col. 3, ll. 44-46; Achia at 3, ll. 54-55). Thus, we conclude that it would
have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a mixture of Group
VIB and VIII metals in the catalyst of claims 1-3 of Perego as the secondary references indicate
that Group VIB metals can be used together with Group VIII metals on a silica-alumina carrier to
catalyze the hydroisomerization reaction.
Appellants argue that neither Achia nor Wittenbrink discloses or suggests any benefit from
including a Group VIB metal in addition to a Group VIII metal (Brief at 4). This argument is not
persuasive because both Achia and Wittenbrink include an express suggestion of using Group
VIB and Group VIII metals together in catalysts for the hydroisomerization of n-paraffins. From
this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the
two types of metals together would be successful in catalyzing the reaction.
Appellants argue that there is no justification to combine Wittenbrink or Achia with
Perego because the secondary references do not explicitly set forth a carrier having the
characteristics claimed (Brief at 7-8). However, the fact that the secondary references do not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007