Appeal No. 2006-1750 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/435,175
Based on that similarity of catalyst composition, catalyst
utility, and method of preparation taught by Grosch and Muller,
we agree with the examiner’s reasonable determination that the
appellants’ catalyst preparation method, including the use of
impregnation, solvent removal and drying as set forth in
representative claim 12, is reasonably suggested by the combined
teachings of the applied references in a manner that would have
rendered the claimed subject matter prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. In this regard, the selection of
palladium and gold as the additives for the titanium zeolite
catalyst of Grosch would have been well within the level of
ordinary skill in the art, especially given the relatively small
list of additive ingredients suggested by each of Grosch and
Muller.
Appellants maintain that “Grosch does not teach the required
impregnation of a titanium zeolite with a solution of a palladium
and a gold compound in a solvent” (brief, page 3). Also,
appellants argue that Muller (brief, pages 3-5) does not teach
how and why the optional elements, including gold are
incorporated in the zeolite catalyst. In this regard, appellants
assert (brief, pages 6-8 and reply brief, page 1) that the
claimed method requires that a zeolite is simultaneously
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007