Appeal No. 2002-1010 Page 6
Application No. 09/206,210
ratio but differ markedly in structure and composition. As
correctly argued by appellants (Brief, page 6; Reply Brief, page
3) and admitted by the examiner (Answer, page 4), EP ‘060 does
not address even broadly the dealumination of its zeolite
catalyst. Accordingly, we determine that the examiner has not
presented a prima facie case of obviousness over EP ‘060 alone
(id.).
Appellants argue that the secondary references to Bowes and
Kuehl are specifically directed only to surface treatment of the
zeolite, i.e., only removing aluminum from the surface of the
catalyst structure (Brief, pages 6-7; Reply Brief, page 3).
Although appellants cite portions of Bowes and Kuehl that refer
to this surface treatment, both references suggest that some
aluminum may be removed from the internal pore structure of the
catalyst. See Kuehl, col. 25-34, where the reference teaches
that the EDTA chelating agent does not go into the zeolite pores
but does remove aluminum ions migrating out of the pores by
complexing. See Bowes, col. 8, ll. 20-29, where the reference
teaches that steaming partially or completely decomposes the
template material and, at the same time, removes framework
(zeolitic) aluminum, preferentially aluminum located at the
surface of the zeolite (thus implicitly suggesting that some
internal aluminum is removed).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007