Appeal No. 2006-1750 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/435,175
impregnated with a solution of a palladium compound and a gold
compound in a solvent.
We do not find appellants’ arguments persuasive for reasons
set forth in the answer, and as further explained herein.
Representative claim 12 does not require the simultaneous
addition of gold and palladium via impregnation, as argued. In
this regard, representative claim 12 recites “... impregnating a
titanium zeolite with a solution of a palladium compound and a
gold compound in a solvent ....” Thus, the zeolite is required
to be impregnated with a solution of a palladium compound and the
zeolite is required to be impregnated with a gold compound in a
solvent. However, representative claim 12 does not require that
the palladium compound and the gold compound are incorporated
into the same solution and that such a solution is used for
simultaneously impregnating the zeolite with both additives. In
this regard, the conjunctive term “and”, as employed in claim 12,
does not clearly require that the solution contains both
compounds. Indeed, the claim phrase “gold compound in a solvent”
is inclusive of an embodiment wherein a solution of gold compound
(gold compound in a solvent) that is distinct from the solution
of a palladium compound is employed in the impregnation in either
a serial or concurrent manner. Thus, representative claim 12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007