Appeal No. 2005-1436
Application No. 09/771,876
Therefore, since appellant has not raised any serious
objections to the rejection on the merits, and since appellants'
amendment has not been entered, the rejection is summarily
affirmed.
With regard to the anticipation rejection based on Iwamoto,
we note that appellants' process claims require preparation of
the catalyst under conditions effective for substituting
aluminum, viz. replacing some aluminum, in the aluminosilicate
zeolitic material with another metal, i.e., Fe, Ga, Ti, and/or
Co. As accurately noted by the examiner, the examples and data
provided in Iwamoto (cols. 7-10; Table 1) are indicative of a
decrease in aluminum content of the zeolite, reflecting the
substitution of iron for aluminum in the zeolite (examiner's
answer, p. 11). This is also suggested by the discussion in col.
3, ll. 7-20, of Iwamoto. Appellants have not presented any
persuasive argument or evidence to the contrary. Cf. In re Best,
562 F.2d 1252, 1254-55, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to other arguments raised by appellants in
regard to Iwamoto, we find that those arguments have been
thoroughly addressed and rebutted in the examiner's answer.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007