Appeal No. 2005-1236
Application No. 10/065,796
envisaged the mordenite, beta zeolite, ZSM-5 and ultra stable Y
zeolite encompassed by the claimed hydrocarbon-removing materials
from the very limited number of the preferred zeolites exemplified
in Hertl within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). In re
Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 315-16, 197 USPQ 5, 8-9 (CCPA
1978)(holding that “the disclosure of a chemical genus . . .
constitute[s] a description of a specific compound” within the
meaning of Section 102 where the specific compound fall within a
genus of a “very limited number of compounds.”); see also In re
Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962).
In any event, we determine that Hertl would have at least
suggested the claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 103 based on the above disclosure. See In re Arkley, 455
F.2d 586, 587, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972). One of ordinary
skill in the art would have been led to employ the eight zeolites
exemplified by Hertl, inclusive of the claimed zeolites, with a
reasonable expectation of effectively removing light hydrocarbons
from internal combustion engine exhaust gases.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007