Appeal No. 2002-1863
Application No. 09/206,207
type double patenting (Brief, page 6). Appellants state their
intention of submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer when one
or more of the copending applications issue as a patent (id.).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm all of the examiner’s provisional
rejections based on the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting. 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 Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner finds that EP ‘060 discloses a process for
producing olefins by catalytic cracking an olefin feedstock with a
zeolitic catalyst such as silicalite or ZSM-5 with a silica/alumina
atomic ratio of greater than 175 under reaction conditions
encompassing the claimed parameters (Answer, page 3). The examiner
recognizes that EP ‘060 does not disclose, inter alia, the claimed
pretreatment of the catalyst including steaming and aluminum
extraction (Answer, page 4). Therefore, the examiner applies
Eberly for its disclosure of a process for treating zeolite by
steaming followed by contact with a complexing agent to remove
aluminum from the gross structure of the zeolite, thereby
increasing the silica/alumina ratio (id.). From these findings,
the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007