Appeal No. 2005-1436
Application No. 09/771,876
Further comment on our part is therefore unnecessary. The same
applies to the arguments raised by appellants in regard to
Suzuki.
With regard to the obviousness rejection, we again find that
the examiner has thoroughly addressed and rebutted appellants'
arguments. Indeed, we note that appellants do not challenge the
basis of the rejection which is premised on a finding that it
would have been obvious, within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 103,
to combine the Skeels catalyst with a binder in view of the
teaching by Farnos or Absil that doing so imparts strength to
zeolite catalysts.
For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth in
the examiner's answer, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007