Appeal No. 2004-2118 Page 8
Application 09/329,502
While appellants assert that the hydrated molecular sieve of
West would be expected to have a higher surface area than an
unhydrated molecular sieve, appellants have not substantiated, on
this record, that the hydration as called for by West would
result in a catalyst having a surface area outside of appellants’
claimed range. In this regard, we note that the calculations
furnished by appellants’ counsel in the briefs (brief, pages 7-9,
reply brief, page 2 and the supplemental reply brief) are merely
arguments of counsel, not evidence that has been substantiated
with actual surface area measurements.4 Moreover, West teaches
at column 9, lines 16-21 that hydration is merely an option.
Consequently, the minimum amount of water to be added to hydrate
the molecular sieve so as to contain 3.5 weight percent water
(West, column 7, lines 52-55) could be zero weight percent water
when the calcination results in leaving 3.5 weight percent water
in the catalyst. Even in the case of Example 1, the amount of
added water to reach the preferred 3.5 weight percent minimum
4 While we agree with appellants that appellants’
specification supports the argued inverse relationship between
porosity and surface area, that relationship alone does not
substantiate the attorney provided surface area calculations as
being representative of the disclosure of West.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007