Appeal 2007-0736
Application 10/480,239
If The Examiner has made a prima facie case of obviousness under §
103, have Appellants rebutted that case by demonstrating unexpected results
compared to the closest prior art?
FINDINGS OF FACT3
Claim Interpretation
1. The language “wherein the ruthenium catalyst is obtained by
treating a support material based on amorphous silicon dioxide . . . 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, 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)” is a product-
by-process limitation thereby shifting the burden to Appellants to show an
unobvious difference between their catalyst and that of the prior art.
(Answer 4.)
2. The claim language does not require more than a single cycle or
“pass.” (Compare Spec. 18 showing data for multiple passes.)
3. The claim language does not exclude ruthenium chloride and other
such halogenated “low molecular weight ruthenium compound[s]” but rather
merely requires “a halogen-free aqueous solution.” (See, e.g., Spec. 6, ll.
16-27.)
4. The claim language does not require any particular level of
hydrogenation of the aromatic groups or of retention of the epoxy groups.
5. The claim language does not exclude additional process steps such
as heating the amorphous silicon dioxide prior to treating it “with a halogen-
3 A Finding of Fact is hereafter abbreviated “FF.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013