Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
page 3 of the Brief5, we do not reach a different result. We
find that Clawson, like the claimed invention, employs noble
metal-promoted reforming catalysts in its autothermal reforming
assembly. See, e.g., pages 16-17 and 19-20. Thus, it is
reasonable to conclude that Clawson’s reforming catalysts, like
the appellant’s catalysts, are “operable to combust a portion of
the fuel gas at a temperature of about 500oF thereby enabling
start up of the reformer assembly while inhibiting carbon
deposition...” 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.,
Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; Best, 562 F.2d at
1255, 195 USPQ at 433-34.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1, 7 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Clawson, Narumiya
and Setzer ‘578.
5 We note that the appellant states that the erroneous
grouping of the claims in the Brief is corrected by the Reply
Brief. See the Reply Brief, page 1.
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007