Appeal No. 2004-2118 Page 7
Application 09/329,502
We do not find those arguments persuasive of the
patentability of the claimed process over the applied prior art.
As explained by the examiner (supplemental answer, pages 5-8),
West discloses the selection of a molecular sieve catalyst for
the transalkylation zone that preferably has a pore size greater
than 7.0 angstroms and can have a surface area of at least
350 m2/g, and which catalyst possesses a silica to alumina ratio
of 4.5 to 35, all values that overlap the claimed ranges for
those values. See column 3, line 34 through column 4, line 10
and column 5, line 54 through column 6, line 46 of West. Where,
as here, a claimed range overlaps or touches a prior art range,
the claimed invention is reasonably found to be prima facie
obvious. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is so since one of ordinary skill in
the art, in following the teachings of the prior art, would be
expected to arrive at a catalyst having the claimed attributes
given the substantial overlap.
3(...continued)
lines 11-21 of West wherein a separate “hydration step” is
described as being optional.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007