Appeal 2007-0280
Application 10/469,392
We also determine that both Audeh and Swaroop disclose Examples
in their disclosures that set forth values for every reaction condition within
the scope of the values recited in claim 14 on appeal. See Audeh, col. 10,
Example 4, where the process exemplified employs temperatures within the
claimed range (e.g., 400º C), equal amounts of ammonia and NOx, a GHSV
of 12,000 hr-1, an iron-impregnated zeolite catalyst with the claimed pore
size, and a conversion of 98% for all nitrogen in the feed (see Table 2). See
Swaroop, the example described on page 5, ll. 15-22, testing the ZSM-5
catalyst with a pore size within the claimed range, impregnated with iron, at
various temperatures within the claimed range, at a space velocity of 5800
hr-1, with equal amounts of ammonia and NO, and a conversion of greater
than 80% (e.g., see Figure 4). Disclosure in the prior art of any value within
the claimed range is an anticipation of that range. See Wertheim, supra.
With regard to Appellants’ evidence (Br. 5-10), we note that such a
showing is not relevant to a proper rejection under § 102. See Malagari,
supra.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of the reference evidence. We also determine that
Appellants’ arguments and evidence have not adequately rebutted this prima
facie case. Therefore we affirm the rejections under § 102(b) of claims 14,
16-18, and 20-29 over Audeh and claims 14, 16-18, 20-24, and 26-29 over
Swaroop.
OTHER ISSUES
We note the extremely relevant admitted prior art discussed on pages
1-4 of the Specification. In the event of further prosecution before the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013