Appeal No. 2005-0183
Application No. 09/206,218
aluminum, as well as a process for the production of olefins by
catalytic cracking of a hydrocarbon feedstock using these
pretreated catalysts (Brief, pages 3-4). A copy of
representative independent claim 1 is attached as an Appendix to
this decision.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Eberly, Jr., et al. (Eberly) 3,506,400 Apr. 14, 1970
Colombo et al. (EP ‘060) 0 109 060 May 23, 1984
(published European Patent Application)
Claims 1-12, 14 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over EP ‘060 in view of Eberly (Answer,
page 3). Claims 15, 18, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Eberly (Answer, page 5). Claims 1-
12, 14 and 19 stand provisionally rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as
unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14, 16-20, 22, 24 and 27
of co-pending Application No. 09/206,216 (Answer, page 8).1
1
1The examiner also provisionally rejects many of the claims
on appeal under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting over the claims of Application Nos. 09/
206,207, 206,208, and 206,210 (Answer, pages 6-8). As noted by
appellants, these applications have now matured into patents and
terminal disclaimers have been submitted (Reply Brief, pages 1-
2). The examiner has accepted the terminal disclaimers and
(continued...)
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007