Appeal No. 2005-0515
Application No. 10/124,925
1. In a catalyst useful in a reductive amination process
for producing amines from alcohols, aldehydes, or ketones,
wherein said catalyst consists essentially of nickel, copper
and chromium, the improvement comprising the further
inclusion of tin in said catalyst.
The reference set forth below is relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness:
Bartley et al. (Bartley) 6,534,441 Mar. 18, 2003
All of the claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bartley.1
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
OPINION
We are in complete agreement with the findings of fact,
conclusions of law and rebuttals to argument expressed by the
examiner in the answer. As a consequence, we hereby adopt these
findings, conclusions and rebuttals as our own. We add the
following comments for emphasis only.
1On page 3 of the brief, the appellants state that “all
claims should stand or fall together based upon the decision
concerning claim 1.” Therefore, in assessing the merits of the
rejection before us, we will focus on independent claim 1.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007