Appeal No. 2000-1808
Application No. 07/855,016
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that only
the examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection is
well founded. Accordingly, we will sustain only that rejection.
Our reasons for these determinations follow.
This is appellants’ second appeal of subject matter
generally involving a process for reforming petroleum
hydrocarbons in the presence of a specific catalyst under
conventional reforming conditions. In comparison with the claims
previously considered by the Board in an earlier appeal, Appeal
No. 1995-2321 (Application 07/855,016), the appealed process
claims now require, inter alia, the presence of a divalent cation
in zeolite KL employed in the specific catalyst. Specifically,
the appealed process claims recite “said divalent cation present
in said mixture” and “wherein the basal planes of said
cylindrical crystals are flatter than the basal planes of
crystals prepared from an otherwise identical synthesis mixture
which is free of said divalent cation” not included in the
previously considered claims. According to page 17, lines 22-26,
of the specification, the presence of a divalent cation not only
provides the above recited advantage (forming flatter basal
planes), but also reduces the formation of crystalline
contaminants, such as zeolite W and erionite.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007