Appeal No. 2005-0209
Application 09/274,014
falls within the range of claims 1, 2 and 11, the examiner finds that Davis discloses zirconia
matrices in Table II which have porosity values within the claimed range (id., pages 7 and 11).
We find that Davis would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art a method for
preparing porous catalyst supports containing zirconia which provides an increased porosity of
the sintered zirconia ceramic body of >10 vol. % after firing at > 1400°C and, if the zirconia is
stabilized by, e.g., yttria, the porosity of >10 vol. % was retained at firing to 1800°C (e.g., col. 2,
ll. 5-23). In Davis Example I, porous yttria stabilized zirconia supports are prepared with the
porosity results reported in Davis Table II wherein thirteen samples fall in the range of 0.3 vol.
% to 24.9 vol. %, twelve samples fall in the range of 25. 2 vol. % to 29.3 vol. %, and five
samples fall in the range of 30.2 vol. % to 33.6 vol. %. We note that the 64th Edition of the CRC
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics B-155 states that Yttria has a density of 5.01,4 and that the
mineral oxide support of appealed claim 1 can comprise yttria stabilized zirconia, which
combination is provided for in appealed claim 9.
We find that the combined teachings of Girot and Davis provide substantial evidence in
support of the examiner’s position. Indeed, appellants do not dispute that Davis discloses porous
zirconia and yttria stabilized zirconia solid matrices within the disclosure of porous solid mineral
oxide supports in Girot and which satisfy the requirements for a mineral oxide matrix in
appealed claims 1, 2, 7 and 11. We are not convinced by appellants’ arguments that one or
ordinary skill in the art would not have combined these references. Indeed, this person would
have recognized that the supports of Davis satisfy the teachings of Girot even though Davis
discloses a different utility, and we found above that the teachings of Girot are not limited to
supports with a pore
volume of 30% or greater.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to appealed claims 2 and 11 (brief, page 16) are not
convincing because we agree with the examiner’s findings that porous silica and zirconia as well
as yttria fall within the claimed density range in claim 2 (see Girot, col. 8, ll. 58-60), and that
Girot discloses the use of “polysaccharides such as dextran” (col. 16, l. 59) which satisfies claim
11.
4 Robert C. Weast, ed., Boca Raton, FLA. CRC Press, Inc. 1983.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007