Appeal No. 2006-1750 Παγε 11
Application No. 10/435,175
POE selectivity compared to a catalyst in which a palladium-
containing titanium zeolite is first formed followed by addition
of gold” (reply brief, pages 2 and 3).
The question as to whether unexpected advantages have been
demonstrated is a factual question. In re Johnson, 747 F.2d
1456, 1460, 223 USPQ 1260, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, it is
incumbent upon appellants to supply the factual basis to rebut
the prima facie case of obviousness established by the examiner.
See, e.g., In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16
(CCPA 1972).
Appellants, however, do not refer to an adequate factual
showing in the specification to support a conclusion of
unexpected advantages. In this regard, we note that the catalyst
employed in the Example 4 reaction test was prepared by a method
that differs substantially from the method of preparation of the
catalyst employed in Example 7. For example, the catalyst used
in Example 4 was prepared using particular metal salts and long
stirring times as detailed in the following steps of Example 1 of
the specification:
The pre-calcined TS-1 (20 g), [Pd (NH3)4] (NO3)2
(2.06 g of a 5 weight percent Pd solution in water),
AuCl3 (0.0317 g), and distilled water (80 g) are placed
in a 250-mL single-neck round-bottom flask forming a
pale white mixture. The flask is connected to a 15-
inch cold water condenser and then blanketed with
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007