Appeal No. 2006-0545 Page 12
Application No. 10/019,273
using tetramethylammonium hydroxide in the place of tetraalkylammonium hydroxide in
the process of forming ZSM-12. However, the Examiner determined that the use of
tetramethylammonium hydroxide would have been obvious. (Answer, p. 7). Appellants
have failed to specifically address the Examiner’s position in responsive briefing.
Appellants assert that claim 13 is separately patentable because Rosinski directs
persons skilled in the art to a particularly preferred molar ratio of 90-100 and away from
the molar ratio of the claim. Claim 13 describes the molar ratio of silica/alumina ranging
from 150 to 200. The Examiner has failed to identify the portion of the Leyshon and
Rosinski references that discloses or suggests the claimed molar ratio. The Examiner
has not adequately explained how the Rosinski disclosure of a ZSM-12 that having a
silica/alumina molar ratio range of 20-100 suggests the claimed molar ratio of
silica/alumina ranging from 150 to 200. The Examiner has also failed to identify why the
claimed molar ratios would have been obvious. Thus, the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case. The rejection of claim 13 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections under ' 112, first and second paragraphs, are reversed. The
' 103 rejection of claim 13 over Leyshon and Rosinski is reversed. The ' 103 rejection
of claims 1-12, 14, and 17-20 over Leyshon and Rosinski is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007