Appeal No. 2005-0183
Application No. 09/206,218
ll. 74-75; and Table IV in col. 8). As correctly noted by
appellants (Reply Brief, pages 2-3), Examples 3 and 4 of Eberly
disclose a catalyst “essentially free” of alumina (see also
Example 6) but do not disclose or suggest any pretreatment other
than that previously used to produce silica:alumina molar ratios
of up to 29. Therefore we agree with appellants that the
silicon:aluminum atomic ratios required by the claims on appeal
would not have been suggested as desirable by Eberly since the
much lower values taught by Eberly gave the desired catalyst
stability.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Therefore we need not consider the sufficiency of
appellants’ evidence of non-obviousness (Brief, pages 13-14).
See In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the rejections on appeal based on
section 103(a) cannot be sustained.
C. Summary
The provisional rejection of claims 1-12, 14 and 19 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007