Appeal No. 2006-0545 Page 8
Application No. 10/019,273
The Rejection under ' 103 over Sang
Claims 1-14 and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Leyshon and Rosinski.1
The Examiner has determined that the claimed invention would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art from the combined teaching of Leyshon
and Rosinski. In particular, the Examiner determined that Leyshon discloses a process
of cracking an olefinic feedstock, such as, hexene into propylene in the presence of a
catalyst containing ZSM-12 zeolite and Rosinski discloses a ZSM-12 that has a
silica/alumina ratio of from 20-100. (Answer, pp. 3-4).
Appellants argue that Leyshon is so broad, as not being sufficient to present a
prima facie case of obviousness. In particular, Appellants argue that it is only with the
present disclosure as a guide that one skilled in the art would choose the ZSM-12
catalyst of Rosinski having the claimed SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio in the process of Leyshon
since Leyshon is not limited to a particular zeolite catalyst. (Brief, p. 7). Appellants also
argue that Leyshon prefers the ZSM-5 catalyst over the ZSM-12 catalyst. (Brief, p. 8).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. A reference is available for all that it
teaches to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Inland Steel Co., 256 F.3d 1354,
1 Appellants have presented separate arguments for claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 17-19 and 20. These claims will
be addressed separately to the extent that Appellants have argued them. The remaining claims are
grouped with claim 1 for patentability.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007