Appeal No. 2005-0515
Application No. 10/124,925
In light of the foregoing, it is our ultimate finding that
appealed claim 1 does not distinguish over Bartley by excluding
rhenium from the here claimed catalyst as argued by the
appellants. We shall sustain, therefore, the examiner’s
rejection of all appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bartley. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007