Appeal No. 2006-1750 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/435,175
of each other. Moreover, we note that appellants’ specification
undercuts such a line of argument in that appellants present
several ways of incorporating the catalyst components other than
impregnation while acknowledging that the manner of incorporating
palladium into the catalyst is not critical. See page 4, line 12
through page 5, line 21 of appellants’ specification.
As for appellants’ remarks regarding the lack of examples
disclosing how to add palladium and gold in the applied
references, it cannot be overemphasized that a reference must be
considered in its entirety and that the disclosure of a reference
is not limited to specific working examples contained therein.
See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570
n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278,
280 (CCPA 1976).
Appellants maintain that appellants’ claimed process is
attended by unexpected results. Appellants (brief, page 8 and
reply brief, pages 2 and 3) point to Example 4 and Example 7 of
the specification wherein catalysts of Example 1 and Example 6,
respectively, are employed in the epoxidation of propylene.
Appellants assert that those examples demonstrate that “a
simultaneous addition of palladium and gold results in
significantly higher oxygen to POE selectivity and hydrogen to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007