Appeal No. 2006-0545 Page 11
Application No. 10/019,273
Appellants assert that claims 3 and 4 are separately patentable because the data
have been shown specifically with ZSM-12 zeolite. (Brief, p. 8). Appellants assert that
claim 14 is separately patentable because actual data has been shown with the
particular molar ratio of this claim. (Brief, p. 9). We do not agree. Leyshon discloses a
process of cracking an olefinic feedstock in the presence of a catalyst containing
ZSM-12 zeolite. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
ZSM-12 catalyst having a silica/alumina ratio of 100 is suitable for such a process from
the teachings of Rosinski. The rejection of claims 3-4 and 14 is affirmed.
Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 17-19 (Brief, p. 9) are not persuasive.
The maintenance of catalytic activity as specified in the claims is a property of the
particular catalyst. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a
ZSM-12 catalyst having a silica/alumina ratio of 100 is suitable for the process of
Leyshon from the teachings of Rosinski. Thus, the rejection of claims 17-19 is affirmed.
Appellants assert that claim 20 is separately patentable, since the applied prior
art neither discloses nor suggests preparing a zeolite having a molar ratio of
silica/alumina less than 200 by the particular steps recited therein. Appellants’
arguments are not persuasive for the reasons presented above and in the Answer.
Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Rosinski discloses a ZSM-12 that can have a
silica/alumina ratio of 100. The Examiner recognized that Rosinski does not disclose
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007