Appeal 2007-0736
Application 10/480,239
16. The skilled artisan would have been aware of and able to obtain
the types of amorphous silicon dioxide support materials used by Appellants.
(See Spec. 4, ll. 33-35 (“Suitable amorphous support materials based on
silicon dioxide are well known to those skilled in the art and are
commercially available.”).)
17. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the
claimed ruthenium catalyst by using a commercially available amorphous
silicon dioxide (based on the teachings of Shokal or Setoyama) as a support
for ruthenium (based on the teachings in each of the references). (FFs 6-16.)
18. Further, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to
succeed in preparing cycloaliphatic compounds such as Appellants’
Compound I by hydrogenating compounds such as Appellants’ Compound
II, based on the teachings of the three cited references. (FFs 6-17.)
19. Appellants have not provided any evidence of an unobvious
difference between their ruthenium catalyst on an amorphous silicon dioxide
support and those in the prior art, i.e., those of Shokal and Setoyama.
Appellants’ “Unexpected Results”
20. Appellants’ produced catalysts A and B (according to the
invention) from ruthenium (III) nitrosyl nitrate and silica gel, reducing the
ruthenium compound to ruthenium metal. (Spec. 12-13.)
21. Appellants produced their comparative catalyst, hydrated
ruthenium oxide, by reacting ruthenium (III) chloride hydrate with aqueous
sodium hydroxide and then washing the product with water and THF.
(Spec. 13 (similar to Schuster’s Example but failing to use Schuster’s closest
teachings, i.e., ruthenium on an inert support (carbon)).)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013