Appeal 2007-0736
Application 10/480,239
amorphous silicon dioxide, based upon the total weight of the
support material, and contains up to 10% by weight of crystalline
silicon dioxide phases, based upon the total weight of the support
material, one or more times with a halogen-free aqueous solution
of a low molecular weight ruthenium compound and subsequently
drying the treated support material at below 200°C,
ii) reducing the solid obtained in i) by means of hydrogen at from 100
to 350°C,
where step ii is carried out directly after step i).
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Shokal, U.S. Patent No. 3,336,241 (issued Aug. 15, 1967); Schuster, U.S.
Patent No. 4,847,394 (issued July 11, 1989); and Setoyama, U.S. Patent
5,157,179 (issued Oct. 20, 1992).
OBVIOUSNESS UNDER § 103(a)
The Examiner found that both Schuster and Shokal set forth a process
for preparing cycloaliphatic compounds having side chains containing
epoxide groups within the scope of the claims and both utilize a ruthenium
catalyst supported on an inert carrier. (Answer 3.) In addition, he found
Shokal discloses use of a silicon dioxide support and an inert solvent. (Id.)
According to the Examiner, the claimed “ruthenium catalyst”
(ruthenium on an amorphous silicon dioxide support material) is a product-
by-process limitation, and thus the product is not limited by the process steps
unless Appellants show “‘an unobvious difference between the claimed
product and the prior art product,’” i.e., that of Example 1 of Setoyama.
(Answer 4-5 (quoting In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 293
(Fed. Cir. 1983).)
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013