Appeal No. 1998-1157
Application 08/278,782
We agree with the examiner’s understanding of the
disclosure set forth in Drehman as summarized on page 4 of
the answer, and as further discussed on page 6 of the
answer.
Regarding our consideration of claim 1, on page 9 of
the brief, appellants argue that Drehman does not require
that the tin component of the catalyst be in the form of tin
oxide.
However, as correctly pointed out by the examiner,
Drehman discloses stannic oxide in Example 1 in column 3 of
the reference. Also, we observe that Example 1 indicates
that the pellets are calcined in air. Such an environment
provides for oxidation.1
Hence, as stated on page 6 of the answer, we agree with
the examiner’s position that because the same materials are
being contacted under the same conditions, the process set
forth in appellants’ claim 1 is suggested by Drehman.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection
involving claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 13, and 15-17.
With respect to claim 8, we provide the additional
comments set forth below.
On page 10 of their brief, appellants state that the
claimed subject matter relates to a process in which the
endothermic reaction catalyst and the hydrogen oxidizing
solid reagent are contained in separate particles. Also, on
page 2 of the reply brief, appellants argue that Drehman
does not suggest a process that includes intermixing
1 We are mindful of appellants’ interpretation of Drehman’s disclosure in
column 2 beginning at line 14. However, we are not convinced that tin
cannot be in the form of tin oxide, especially because of the fact that
tin oxides are disclosed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007