Appeal 2006-2522
Application 10/279,632
Appellants separately argue claims 4 and 7 which recite ranges for the
amount of one of the catalysts and the second catalyst, respectively.
However, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been a matter of
prima facie obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the
optimum amount for each catalyst. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276,
205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). Also, Appellants have not refuted the
Examiner’s factual finding that “it is well known in the art that the efficiency
of oxidant reduction in the cathode is determined by the amounts of
platinum black (carbon supported platinum) in the electrode. See
Mazzucchelli et al. (U.S. 7[sic,6],737,183 B1); Column 1, Lines 48-67”
(Answer 7, third paragraph).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2004).
AFFIRMED
clj
Fish & Richardson P.C.
P.O. Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1022
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: November 3, 2007