Appeal No. 2006-1750 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/435,175
does not require the disclosed option of simultaneous addition of
the compounds.
Moreover, even if we could agree with appellants that
representative claim 12 requires the concurrent impregnation
addition of palladium and gold to the zeolite, such a limitation,
by itself, would not patentably distinguish appellants’ method
over the method suggested by the applied references. This is so
since Muller is concerned with using a catalyst for the oxidation
that is easy to prepare. Muller fully describes how platinum
group metals, such as palladium, may be incorporated into the
catalyst by impregnation using a solvent and a salt form of the
metal. Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to incorporate one of the additional disclosed metals, such
as gold, via a similar impregnation method with a reasonable
expectation of success in so doing.3 Thus, one of ordinary skill
3 Muller does not explicitly disclose a separate reason for
additionally modifying a catalyst with one or more elements
selected from iron, cobalt, nickel, rhenium, silver and gold, as
disclosed as column 2, lines 33-39 of the patent. However, the
lack of express disclosure of a separate reason for incorporating
those additional additives taught by Muller does not militate
against the use of one or more of those additional catalyst
modifiers to achieve a desirable catalyst as taught by Muller.
Indeed, Muller teaches that the catalyst is not only easy to
prepare but does not suffer disadvantages associated with prior
art catalysts. See column 1, lines 20-43 of Muller. Thus, one
of ordinary skill of the art would be guided by these previously
stated purposes in choosing to add such additional modifier(s).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007