Appeal No. 2002-1010 Page 7
Application No. 09/206,210
However, even assuming arguendo that Bowes and Kuehl
disclose or suggest the same method recited in the claims on
appeal for production of the MFI crystalline silicate catalyst
(i.e., steaming and dealumination to remove aluminum from the
pores), we agree with appellants that the examiner has not
provided any convincing reason or motivation for combining these
references with the process of EP ‘060 (Brief, page 9).5 See In
re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999). The only “general“ statements of motivation supplied by
the examiner are that all of the references disclose zeolites
that may be used in cracking and all references are directed to
“high Si MFI type zeolites.” Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4-
5. These general statements are not convincing, since EP ‘060 is
directed to zeolite catalysts with a Si/Al atomic ratio of 175 or
greater, while Kuehl is directed to catalysts with Si/Al atomic
ratios of greater than 6 (col. 2, ll. 63-64; col. 12, ll. 59-63)
with examples as high as 35 (Examples 6, 7 and 8), and Bowes
teaches activity “even when the silica to aluminum mole ratio
exceeds 30 [atomic ratio 15],” with examples as high as 54. See
col. 3, ll. 40-43, and col. 11, l. 61, Table 2. Therefore we
determine that the examiner has not established why one of
5In view of our decision, we need not discuss appellants’
reference evidence (Exhibit B, Brief, page 9) or objective
evidence of “substantially improved results” (Brief, page 13).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007