Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
and Narumiya are discussed above. We find that Clawson also
discloses reforming catalysts corresponding to those disclosed at
pages 3 and 4 of the appellant’s specification. Thus, it is
reasonable to conclude that Clawson’s reforming catalysts, like
the appellant’s catalysts, are capable of combusting a portion of
the fuel gas during an autothermal reforming process to raise the
temperature of a catalyst bed while, at the same time, inhibiting
carbon deposition therein. On this record, the appellant has not
demonstrated that the reforming catalysts described in Clawson
are not capable of performing the claimed functions. See, e.g.,
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34
(CCPA 1977).
To the extent that Clawson’s reforming catalysts are not
capable of performing the above functions during the autothermal
3(...continued)
(7)(2001). See the Brief, pages 14-16. Therefore, for purposes
of this appeal, we select claim 1 and determine the propriety of
the examiner’s rejection based on this claim alone. See In re
McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir.
2002)(“If the brief fails to meet either requirement [of 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2001)] the Board is free to select a single claim
from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection
as representative of all claims in that group and to decide the
appeal of that rejection based solely on the selected
representative claim.”).
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007