Appeal No. 2002-0864
Application 09/022,817
demonstrated that the temperature range taught by Ando to be
useful for a non-catalytic denitrating step is also applicable to
the admittedly known catalytic denitration step as explained
and/or modified by Kato and Tabata.2 Nor has the examiner
demonstrated that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected to obtain the same or similar chlorination
reaction taught by Kubisa in the presence of, inter alia, the
claimed denitration catalyst.
On this record, the examiner simply has not established
a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the claimed subject
matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.3 Accordingly, we
reverse the aforementioned Section 103 rejection.
2 Indeed, as indicated supra, both Kato and Tabata teach
that a catalytic denitration step involving the claimed catalysts
is desirably carried out at a temperature below 600oC which is
much below the mercury chlorination temperature suggested by
Kubisa.
3 Since no prima facie case is established, we need not
address the sufficiency of the secondary evidence proffered by
the appellants. See, e.g., In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007