Appeal 2006-2735
Application 10/758,552
The Examiner has entered the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Igarashi and Silver;2 and
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Igarashi, Silver and Chintawar (Answer 3-7).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above noted rejections, we make
reference to the Answer (mailed February 1, 2006) for the Examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (filed December 30,
2005) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst. Our reasons follow.
OPINION.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Igarashi and Silver. We select claim 1 as representative of
the rejected claims.
The Examiner asserts that Igarashi discloses catalysts suitable for use
in water gas shift reactions and the production of hydrogen. The catalyst
comprises platinum as a primary transition metal and rhenium as a transition
metal promoter that are supported on a zirconia metal oxide carrier (Answer
3-4). The Examiner found that the Igarashi reference describes an example
that includes platinum and rhenium in amounts that meet the presently
claimed invention (Answer 4). The Examiner asserts that the invention of
Igarashi differs from the claimed invention in that the support material is not
described as comprising cerium oxide and an additive material such as
2 When discussing the Igarashi reference the Examiner relies on
EP 1 161 991 document as an English-language equivalent of WO 00/54879.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013