Appeal No. 2006-1750 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/435,175
Having carefully considered each of appellants’ arguments
set forth in the brief and reply brief and the specification
evidence relied on in support thereof, appellants have not
persuaded us of reversible error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejections for
substantially the reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer. We add the following for emphasis.
Rejection of claims 12-16 and 18
Appellants do not argue claims 12-16 and 18 separately.
Thus, we consider these claims as a group and select claim 12 as
the representative claim on which we decide this appeal as to
this ground of rejection.
The examiner has determined that Grosch discloses a method
of preparing a zeolite (titanium silicalite) catalyst body
wherein one or more noble metals selected from ruthenium,
rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, platinum, rhenium, gold and
silver are added to the catalyst via an impregnation technique
that employs a solvent. Grosch teaches that the catalyst is
subjected to a drying step, as noted by the examiner at page 3 of
the answer. See, e.g., column 8, line 62 through column 9, line
30 of Grosch. Grosch discloses, inter alia, that the product
catalysts can be used as oxidation catalysts, including as a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007