Appeal No. 2002-1863
Application No. 09/206,207
ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of EP ‘060 “by
dealuminating the zeolite to achieve the desired silicon:aluminum
atomic ratio as suggested by Eberly because the resulting zeolite
will have higher stability.” Id.
It is incumbent upon the examiner, when proposing a
combination or modification of references, to identify some
suggestion to combine the references or make the modification. See
In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir.
1997). As correctly argued by appellants (Brief, pages 11-14;
Reply Brief, pages 3-4), Eberly is not directed to MFI-type
catalysts and only suggests silica/alumina mole ratios much lower
than those required by EP ‘060 (and as required by the claims on
appeal). Eberly does disclose that the catalysts are useful in
cracking processes (col. 1, ll. 64-71, and col. 9, ll. 55-61) and
that higher silica/alumina mole ratios provide greater stability to
heat, steam and acid (col. 2, ll. 20-25). However, these “higher”
silica/alumina mole ratios suggested by Eberly are ones such as 8:1
to 12:1 (col. 2, ll. 25-34), with examples as high as 29:1 (Table
IV, col. 8, l. 11). Eberly teaches heating a catalyst in steam,
followed by extraction with EDTA, results in a catalyst with an
“extremely high” silica/alumina mole ratio of about 20 (see Table
III, col. 7, ll. 18-37). The lowest silica/alumina mole ratio
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007