Appeal No. 2003-1560 Page 5
Application No. 09/899,985
[i]t would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made, to have utilized the teaching taught by Nishimura
et al. in the device of Takeshima et al., since the use
thereof would have promoted an understanding of how an
electrochemical catalyst works and thus, encouraged the
use of the electrochemical catalyst to purify harmful
emissions in the exhaust gas of internal combustion
engines.
It is well settled that the mere fact that the prior art may
be modified to reflect features of the claimed invention does not
make the modification obvious unless the desirability of such
modification is suggested by the applied prior art. See In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Here, the examiner has not identified any particularized
suggestion based on specifically identified teachings of the
applied references that would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to the claimed subject matter with a reasonable
expectation in so doing. While the examiner refers to the lean
Nox conversion catalyst (34, fig. 1) of Nishimura, the examiner
has not fairly explained why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found that such a catalyst represents a teaching which
would have suggested a modification of the copper and alkali
earth oxide absorbent or the rare earth metal and noble metal
absorbent of Takeshima in a manner so as to arrive at the here
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007