Appeal No. 2006-1903
Application No. 10/204,306
claimed range and have been lower than the decomposition
temperature of the template compound.
Appellants argue that the process of Grosch calcines the
titanium silicalite powder before the powder is shaped, thus
producing a structurally different starting material used to make
the shaped body as compared to the present invention (Brief, page
5). Appellants thus argue that it cannot be necessarily expected
that the respective final products would be identical or
essentially the same (id.). Appellants’ arguments are not
persuasive. First, as discussed above, appellants are arguing the
process steps but the claims are directed to a product. See In re
Wertheim, supra. Second, the process recited in claim 16 on appeal
does not exclude two calcination steps (before and after shaping).
We note that the transition term in line 1 of claim 16 on appeal is
“comprising,” which opens the process to additional, unrecited
steps. See Moleculon Research Corp. V. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261,
1271, 229 USPQ 805, 812 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As found by the examiner
(Answer, page 4), the template compound is chosen by Grosch in a
way that the titanium silicalite exhibits MFI, MEL or BEA structure
(Grosch, col. 2, ll. 61-64). The claimed limitation that the
“calcining takes place after the formation of the green shaped
article” (claim 16, last line) does not exclude the introduction of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007