Appeal No. 2006-1750 Παγε 14
Application No. 10/435,175
and In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA
1980).
Under the circumstances recounted above, it is our
determination that the evidence of record for and against a
conclusion of obviousness, reconsidered in light of the
respective arguments and evidence advanced by appellants and the
examiner, on balance, weighs most heavily in favor of an
obviousness conclusion with respect to the rejection under
consideration. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner's
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 12-16 and 18.
Rejection of dependent claim 17
Dependent claim 17 requires that the gold compound employed
is selected from halides, cyanides, hydroxides, and sulfides. In
the separate rejection of dependent claim 17, the examiner
additionally relies on the teachings of Bowman to show that a
soluble gold compound, such as a gold cyanide is known to be
useful in adding a gold promoter to a zeolite catalyst. See,
e.g., column 9, lines 23-26 of Bowman.5
In addition to the arguments and evidence advanced against
the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12, which we find
5
5 Also, we note that Bowman (column 10, lines 25-33)
discloses the simultaneous addition of multiple promoter metals
as an option.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007