Appeal No. 1999-1459 3
Application No. 08/625,613
by Buysch.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by the appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the rejections of claims 1 through 20 are
not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
The Rejections under § 102(e)
In order for a claimed invention to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), all of
the elements of the claim must be found in one reference. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir.
1991). The examiner relies upon a reference to Buysch to reject the claimed subject
matter and establish a prima facie case of anticipation. The premise of the rejection is that
the dessicants disclosed by Buysch include activated aluminum oxide, zeolitic aluminum
sulfates or Faujasite, which although disclosed as desiccants also function as well known
support materials. Furthermore, Buysch does not preclude the use of dessicants as
supports. See Answer, page 4. We disagree.
In contrast, appellants’ essential argument is directed to the lack of teaching in
Buysch of a supported catalyst. See Brief, pages 4-10.
We find that Buysch is directed to a process for the preparation of diaryl carbonates
utilizing a catalyst having essentially the same components as required by the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007