Appeal No. 2001-2491 Page 5
Application No. 09/168,564
discuss the claimed characteristics does not in itself defeat a conclusion of obviousness. “The
consistent criterion for determination of obviousness is whether the prior art would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that this process should be carried out and would have
a reasonable likelihood of success, viewed in the light of the prior art.” In re Dow Chem., 837
F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Here, the secondary references suggest
that Group VIII and Group VIB metals can be used alone or together on various carriers including
silica-alumina carriers having an acidic component active in producing olefin cracking and
hydroisomerization reactions (Wittenbrink at col. 3, ll. 60-68). This description of the carrier
encompasses the carrier claimed by Perego.
Appellants say that the Group VIB metals would be expected to be inactive on the carrier
described in Perego because of the higher alumina content and lower surface area of the
Wittenbrink catalyst (Brief at 7). This assertion, however, is not supported by any objective
evidence and is, therefore, entitled to little or no probative weight. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d
699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The high alumina low surface area support
Appellants are referring to is merely Wittenbrink’s preferred catalyst carrier. As discussed above,
Wittenbrink more generally discloses Group VIB metals on a catalyst support which is inclusive
of the carrier claimed in Perego (Wittenbrink at col. 3, ll. 60-68). One of ordinary skill in the art
would have expected that Group VIB metals would be active on the carrier of Perego.
Appellants argue that, at best, the carrier and metal combination is “obvious to try” (Brief
at 8). We do not agree that the combination is merely “obvious to try”. “For obviousness under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007