Appeal 2007-0736
Application 10/480,239
22. The results obtained provide some evidence that catalysts A and
B, made from a nitrate and on an inert support, produced a slightly greater
proportion of hydrogenated aromatic groups than the comparative catalyst,
made from a chloride and not on an inert support. (Spec. 15; FFs 20-21.)
23. Appellants’ data do not evidence any unexpected results
sufficient to overcome the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, as
no comparison was made with the closest prior art teachings-- teachings
which employ ruthenium metal on an inert carrier which can be silicon
dioxide. (Shokal, col. 6, ll. 1-12 & col. 11, ll. 56-68.)
24. The skilled artisan would have expected Appellants’ comparative
example to produce inferior results to those of Examples A and B in that the
use of ruthenium chloride as the starting material could produce chlorine (or
chloride ion) thereby possibly poisoning the ruthenium catalyst. (See FF
13.)
DISCUSSION
Based on our findings and those of the Examiner, we conclude the
Examiner has made a prima facie case of obviousness under § 103(a) of the
subject matter of claim 1, based on the combined teachings of Schuster,
Shokal, and Setoyama. As we interpret claim 1 (FFs 1-5), all of the
limitations of claim 1 are disclosed in the cited prior art (FFs 6-14), with the
exception of “halogen-free aqueous solution” (FF 13). With respect to this
limitation, the skilled artisan would have recognized the advantages of using
such a solution in view of the prior art teachings and the general knowledge
in the art. (See id.)
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013