Appeal No. 2002-1010 Page 3
Application No. 09/206,210
of the catalyst, and calcining the catalyst at elevated
temperature.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Bowes et al. (Bowes) 4,876,411 Oct. 24, 1989
Kuehl et al. (Kuehl) 4,954,243 Sep. 04, 1990
Colombo et al. (EP ‘060) 0 109 060 May 23, 1984
(published European Patent Application)
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over EP ‘060 in view of Bowes and Kuehl (Answer,
page 3). The claims on appeal stand provisionally rejected under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over (1) claims 1-16 of copending application no.
09/206,207 (Answer, page 5); (2) claims 1-16 of copending
application no. 09/206,208 (Answer, page 6); (3) claims 1-26 of
copending application no. 09/206,216 (id.); and (4) claims 1-16
of copending application no. 09/206,218 (Answer, sentence
bridging pages 6-7).
We summarily affirm all of the examiner’s provisional
rejections based on obviousness-type double patenting for the
reasons stated in the Answer. We reverse the examiner’s
rejection based on section 103(a) essentially for the reasons
stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and those reasons set forth
below. Therefore the decision of the examiner to reject the
claims on appeal is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007