Appeal No. 2002-1010 Page 4
Application No. 09/206,210
A. The Rejections based on Obviousness-type Double
Patenting
Appellants present no arguments against the examiner’s
provisional rejections based on the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting (Brief, page 5).
Accordingly, we presume that appellants acquiesce to these
provisional rejections and thus summarily affirm all of the
examiner’s provisional rejections based on the judicially created
doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting for the reasons
advanced by the examiner in the Answer. See In re Wetterau, 356
F.2d 556, 557-58, 148 USPQ 499, 500-01 (CCPA 1966); cf. Ex parte
Karol, 8 USPQ2d 1771, 1773-74 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1988).
B. The Rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner finds that EP ‘060 discloses a process for the
conversion of olefins to propylene by contacting the feed with a
zeolite catalyst, where this catalyst has a Si/Al ratio of
greater than 350 “which meets the instantly claimed values.”
Answer, page 4.4 The examiner finds that EP ‘060 does not
disclose or teach the preparation of the zeolite catalyst as
4As noted by the examiner on pages 9 and 14 of the Answer,
the “greater than 350" mole ratio of Si/Al disclosed by EP ‘060
is equivalent to an atomic ratio for Si/Al of “greater than 175.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007