Appeal No. 2003-1560 Page 3
Application No. 09/899,985
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeshima in view of
Nishimura and Murphy. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeshima in view
of Nishimura and Schmelz.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Upon consideration of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and the examiner with respect to the rejections that
are before us for review, we find ourselves in agreement with
appellants’ position in that the examiner has failed to carry the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or
obviousness. Accordingly, we will not sustain any of the
examiner’s stated rejections.
As for the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-3 and 13 over
Takeshima, all of the so rejected claims require that an
electrochemical catalyst that is interposed between two three-way
catalysts possesses oxidation reaction and reducing reaction
promotion functional attributes in addition to including an
electron conducting substance and an ion conducting substance.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007