Appeal No. 2002-0249
Application No. 09/321,390
CLAIM 22
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Setzer ‘578 and Narumiya. We find that Setzer ‘578 does not
teach using the claimed noble metal-promoted catalyst in its
autothermal reformer assembly. The examiner, however, takes
official notice that the use of the claimed noble metal-promoted
catalysts in an autothermal reformer assembly is well known. See
the Answer, page 15. The appellant does not challenge the
official notice taken by the examiner. See the Brief and the
Reply Brief in their entirety. Nor does the appellant challenge
the examiner’s determination regarding obviousness of using the
claimed noble metal promoted catalyst in the autothermal
reforming assembly of the type taught by Setzer ‘578. The
appellant argues that the conventional noble metal promoted
catalyst does not impart the claimed functions. Accordingly, for
the reasons indicated supra, we are constrained to affirm the
examiner’s decision rejecting claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Setzer ‘578 and
Narumiya.
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007