Appeal No. 2002-2057
Application No. 09/351,147
zeolites are used.” While the reference does teach that the
zeolites “may optionally include various elements ion exchanged,
impregnated or otherwise deposited thereon...” (page 3, lines
42-46), this is the extent of the disclosure. In our view, this
disclosure is not sufficiently specific to have placed the
claimed invention in possession of one of ordinary skill in the
art.
For these reasons and those set forth in the appellants’
briefs, we cannot uphold the examiner’s rejection on this
ground.
II. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): EP ’736
With respect to claims 3, 4, and 6, the examiner argues
that the zeolite in EP ’736 “may be treated with a phosphorus
compound.” (Answer, page 4.) We cannot agree. As we discussed
above, EP ’736 does not identify the “various elements ion
exchanged, impregnated or otherwise deposited” on the zeolite.
Instead, the reference merely teaches that the “zeolites can be
free of oxides [e.g., oxides of phosphorus] incorporated into
the zeolites by an impregnation treatment.” (Page 3, lines 46-
50.)
Because the examiner has not identified any evidence to
remedy the basic deficiency of EP ’736 relative to the appealed
subject matter, we hold that the examiner has not made out a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007