Appeal No. 2006-0545 Page 10
Application No. 10/019,273
utilizes the term “comprising” as a transitional term, thus, opening the claim to the
recited steps and any other steps such as an additional methathesis reaction. See
Vehicular Techs. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383, 54 USPQ2d 1841,
1845 (Fed. Cir. 2000); and Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261,
1271, 229 USPQ 805, 812 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Appellants assert that the specification contains comparative data
demonstrating both the significance of the molar ratio of silica/alumina, when using a
ZSM-12 catalyst, and a ZSM-12 catalyst compared to a ZSM-5 catalyst. Specifically,
Appellants assert:
Example 3 demonstrates catalytic testing of a ZSM-12 zeolite having a
molar ratio SiO2/Al2O3 of 100. Comparative Example 4 is otherwise similar
but employs a molar ratio SiO2/Al2O3 of 250. The results for total
conversion and selectivity to propylene are shown for Example 3 and
Comparative Example 4 in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The differences in
results are manifest. For Example 3, and as described in the specification
at page 12, lines 15-19, the total conversion and selectivity to propylene
are high and remain steady for a time on stream (tos) of a least 140 hours,
thus demonstrating unexpected stability and no catalytic deterioration
phenomena during this time. For Comparative Example 4, on the other
hand, and as described in the specification at page 15, lines 5-12, contrary
to what is specified in the literature, the catalytic performance of ZSM-12
with a molar ratio SiO2/Al2O3 of 250 is lower both in terms of yield and
duration, with respect to the zeolite having a greater content of Al2O3, and
already after 25 hours of tos, evident catalytic deterioration phenomena are
present.
(Brief, p. 5).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007