Appeal 2007-1564
Application 10/611,508
II. DISCUSSION
The Anticipation Rejection
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the issue is:
Has the Examiner identified something falling within the claimed subject
matter that is specific enough to constitute a description of the claimed
subject matter within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 102?
In order to anticipate, a reference must identify something falling
within the claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a
description thereof within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 102. See In re
Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317, 197 USPQ 5, 8 (CCPA 1978).
Claim 1 is directed to a supported catalyst comprising a porous
coating containing the catalyst on a solid support. Claim 13 is directed to a
bulk transition metal-containing material catalyst in which the catalyst is
contained in a porous solid mass.
Davies describes a coating composition applied to metal such as steel
and used as a “shop primer” to protect the metal from corroding during
construction, e.g. ship building (Davies, col. 1, ll. 11-46 and col. 2, ll.
50-63). The coating is intended to be non-porous as it is for corrosion
protection. That it is intended to be non-porous is also evident from the fact
that it can contain latex dispersions of organic resins (Davies, col. 3, ll. 46-
64), it can contain binder and pigment so as to fill all the interstices between
the particles in a close-packed system (Davies, col. 5, ll. 1-6), and there is no
pinholing (Davies, col. 8, ll. 33-59).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013