Appeal No. 2006-0446
Application No. 09/778,103
appellants, we will adopt the examiner’s reasoning as our own.
We add the following for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Lauder, like appellants, discloses
a catalyst composition for purifying exhaust gases from internal
combustion engines comprising the presently claimed metal oxide
compounds, iridium, and either calcium or strontium. As
recognized by the examiner, Lauder does not teach the presence of
sulfur in the catalyst composition. However, the examiner
properly finds that Shigeru “teaches the suitability of sulfated
supports as carriers for catalysts in the purification of exhaust
gases and further teaches the equivalence of these sulfated
supports to the alumina, zirconia, and silica supports taught by
Lauder” (page 4 of answer, last full sentence). Accordingly,
based on the collective teachings of Lauder and Shigeru, we find
that the examiner has formed the appropriate legal conclusion
that “[b]ecause of the art recognized functional equivalence of
the sulfated supports taught by Shigeru et al. to the supports
taught by Lauder as carriers for catalysts useful in the
purification of exhaust gases, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill to have substituted one known component for the
other in the catalyst taught by Lauder” (sentence bridging pages
4 and 5 of the answer).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007