Appeal No. 2002-0218 Application No. 09/332,415 CLAIMS 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya, Setzer and Dicks. Much of the relevant disclosures of Clawson and Narumiya are discussed above. We find nothing in Setzer and Dicks which teaches or would have suggested the employment of a copper and/or zinc catalyst bed subsequent to a noble metal catalyst bed in the autothermal reformer assembly of the type suggested by Clawson and Narumiya. Nor has the examiner explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the above-mentioned catalysts in the claimed sequence. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection. CLAIMS 13 THROUGH 15 We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya, Setzer, Dicks and Sheller. However, since the examiner does not rely on Sheller to remedy the above deficiency, we reverse this rejection as well. CLAIM 18 We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined 13Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007