Appeal No. 2006-1750 Παγε 15
Application No. 10/435,175
unpersuasive for reasons set forth above, appellants maintain
that Bowman excludes palladium promoter in a preferred embodiment
leaving little incentive to combine Bowman with Grosch and
Muller. We disagree for reasons set forth by the examiner in the
answer (page 11). In this regard, Grosch teaches that water
soluble salts should be employed in adding metals, such as gold,
to the catalyst. See, e.g., column 8, lines 62 through column 9,
line 7 of Grosch. Nor is the teaching value of Bowman limited to
one preferred embodiment thereof that would exclude palladium.
It follows that, on this record, we affirm the examiner’s
separate obviousness rejection of claim 17.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 12-16 and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Grosch in
view of Muller and to reject claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Grosch in view of Muller and Bowman is
affirmed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007