Appeal No. 2004-2294
Application 10/002,343
1. A catalyst for purification of exhaust gases in oxygen-rich atmospheres in which oxygen
concentrations of the exhaust gases are at the stoichiometric point or more required for oxidizing
components to oxidized therein, consisting essentially of:
(1) a catalysis-promoting coating comprising a noble metal catalyst and a NOx storage
component loaded onto a carrier material, wherein the NOx storage component comprises an
alkali metal and,
(2) a ceramic substrate for supporting the catalysis-promoting coating, wherein the
ceramic substrate exhibits resistance to alkali metal migration below 1000°C, and a coefficient of
thermal expansion of less than about 25x10-7/°C (25-800°C).
3. The catalyst according to claim 2 wherein the substrate comprises a material selected
from the group consisting of calcium aluminate, magnesium dititanate, iron titanate, zirconium
titanate, and mixtures and solid solutions thereof.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Nishino et al. (Nishino) 4,350,613 Sep. 21, 1982
Mitsui et al. (Mitsui) 5,082,820 Jan. 21, 1992
Miyoshi et al. (Miyoshi) 5,948,376 Sep. 7, 1999
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 3 and 8 through 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Miyoshi in view of Mitsui (answer, pages 4-6), and appealed
claims 1 through 4 and 8 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Miyoshi in view of Nishino (answer, pages 7-9; ).
Appellants group the appealed claims as claims 1 and 8 through 20 and claims 2 through
4 and 21 (brief, page 4). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1 and 3 as
representative of the grouping of claims and the two grounds of rejection. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)
(2003); see also 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (effective September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
catalysts encompassed by appealed claims 1 and 3 would have been obvious over the combined
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007