Appeal No. 2005-0183
Application No. 09/206,218
increased stability to the zeolite catalyst. Similarly, with
regard to the rejection over Eberly alone, the examiner has not
presented any convincing reasoning, suggestion or motivation as
to why one of ordinary skill in this art would have employed the
pretreatment taught by Eberly to MFI crystalline silicate
catalysts to yield silicon/aluminum atomic ratios of from 300 to
1000.
As also correctly argued by appellants (Brief, pages 7-8;
Reply Brief, page 2), Eberly does not disclose pretreatment of
the MFI crystalline silicate catalysts required by all the claims
on appeal. Eberly discloses pretreatment of “crystalline
aluminosilicate zeolites of the molecular sieve type” in general
having the formula recited at col. 2, ll. 3-4 (see also col. 1,
ll. 34-35). The value of X in this formula requires
silica:alumina mole ratios of 1.5 to 12 (i.e., atomic ratios of
0.75 to 6; see col. 2, ll. 7-8). Eberly further teaches the use
of many natural and synthetic zeolites, none of which has been
identified by the examiner as a MFI crystalline silicate catalyst
(col. 2, ll. 9-18).
Eberly teaches “extremely high” silica:alumina mole ratios
of “15 to 1 or greater” with an example of an “extremely high”
mole ratio of 29 (col. 4, ll. 35-38; col. 7, ll. 35-37; col. 7,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007