Appeal No. 2002-1863
Application No. 09/206,207
suggested by EP ‘060 is 350 (see EP ‘060, page 1, and the Answer,
page 3, converting this value to an atomic ratio of greater than
175). The examiner has not presented any convincing reasoning,
suggestion or motivation as to why one of ordinary skill in this
art would have modified the process of EP ‘060, with catalysts
already possessing silica/alumina atomic ratios of greater than
175, by the catalyst pretreatment of Eberly when Eberly teaches
that silica/alumina mole ratios of 8 through 20 provide
sufficiently increased stability. Accordingly, we determine that
the examiner has not presented convincing reasons for the proposed
combination of references and therefore no case of prima facie
obviousness has been established.2 Thus we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection based on the combination of EP ‘060 and
Eberly.
With regard to the rejection of claims 16 and 20-26, the
examiner additionally cites Glockner for the disclosure of a
process for selectively hydrogenating dienes (Answer, page 5).
Therefore Glockner does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above
for the combination of EP ‘060 and Eberly. Additionally, we agree
2Since we determine that no case of prima facie obviousness
has been established, a discussion of appellants’ countervailing
evidence of non-obviousness (Exhibits B, C and D attached to the
Brief) is unnecessary to this decision.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007