Appeal No. 1999-1459 4
Application No. 08/625,613
subject matter but for the support. See column 1, lines 5-13, column 2, lines 39 to
column 3, line 54. We find that the catalysts of Buysch are in the form of a solution. See
Examples 1 through 6. We find no disclosure directed to a supported catalyst. We find
that the sole description of a material corresponding to appellants’ claimed support lies in
Buysch’s discussion of “desiccants.” We find that the desiccants disclosed by Buysch
include materials which overlap the supports utilized by the appellants. We find that
examples of such desiccants include aluminum oxide and synthetic aluminosilicates of the
zeolite type. See column 5, lines 28-38. These are the same materials disclosed as
catalytic supports on page 5, lines 10-26 of the specification. Indeed the appellants state
that the supported catalysts can be used as powders. See specification, page 10.
Notwithstanding the above findings, the disclosure of Buysch is directed solely to
the use of the aforesaid compounds and others as desiccants in an amount sufficient to
remove the water of reaction formed and the moisture of the starting materials. See
column 5, lines 39-41. Although the examiner states with respect to the dessicants that,
“their use as supports is not precluded by Buysch,” Answer, page 5, the issue before us, on
the grounds of anticipation, is whether the dessicant as used by Buysch inherently and
necessarily functions as a catalytic support as required by the claimed subject matter. In
that respect, the examiner has advanced no theory or plausible explanation why the
dessicants as used by Buysch would act as a support in the formation of a catalyst as
required by the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, no prima facie case of anticipation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007