Appeal No. 2002-1882
Application 09/756,383
The appellants argue that the claimed invention produces
surprising and unexpected results, and that despite their efforts
to present data comparing the claimed invention to the closest
prior art, the examiner argues obviousness of the claimed
invention (brief, pages 5-6). This argument is not convincing
because the appellants do not rely in this appeal on any
comparison of the claimed invention with prior art.
The appellants argue that the principle thrust of Bower is
to use coordination compounds, and that the references do not
suggest the use of the appellants’ particular combination of
coordination compounds (brief, page 6). As discussed above,
Bower would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in
the art, using a mixture of platinum acetylacetonate and rhodium
acetylacetonate. As indicated by the appellants’ claim 2,
platinum acetylacetonate is among the appellants’ fuel-soluble
organoplatinum compounds. Regardless, even if one of ordinary
skill in the art were to use one of Bower’s other platinum
compounds, the disclosure of using acetylacetonates of platinum
group metals (col. 7, lines 27-29), which can be rhodium (col. 5,
lines 55-56), and of a preference for using platinum compounds
and rhodium compounds in combination (col. 5, lines 57-59), would
have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007