Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
CLAIMS 1, 7 and 21
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 7 and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya and Setzer ‘578. For the
reasons indicated supra, we determine that the subject matter
recited in claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Clawson and
Narumiya, with or without the teachings of Setzer ‘578. Setzer
‘578, like Setzer ‘484, discloses reforming catalysts which
correspond to those embraced by claims 1 and 7.
Having determined that the subject matter recited in claim 1
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in
view of the applied prior art references for the reasons
indicated above, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 7 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 inasmuch as the
appellant states that “[c]laims 1, 7 [and] 21...stand or fall
together.”4 See the Reply Brief, page 1.
Even were we to consider the subject matter of claim 21
separately from claims 1 and 7 as requested by the appellant at
4 See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2001); McDaniel, 293 F.3d at
1383, 63 USPQ2d at 1465.
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007