Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
same. See, e.g., In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171,
174 (CCPA 1979)(a prior art reference is considered from an
analogous art if it is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventors were involved). This is
especially true in this situation since Naurmiya teaches a noble
metal deposited open cell foam support having properties
appropriate and advantageous to the reforming zone of the
autothermal reforming assembly of the type described in Clawson.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Clawson and Narumiya.
CLAIMS 1-6, 9-12 AND 16-18
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through
6, 9 through 12 and 16 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya
and Setzer ‘484.3 Much of the relevant disclosures of Clawson
3 The appellant appears to have grouped the claims on appeal
as follows (Brief, page 3 and Reply Brief, page 1):
Group I-Claims 2-6, 9-12 and 16-18; and
Group II-Claim 1.
However, the appellant has provided no substantive arguments
regarding the separate patentability of any of claims 2-6, 9-12
and 16-18 consistent with the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)
(continued...)
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007