Appeal 2007-1564
Application 10/611,508
The Examiner has failed to identify something in Davies that
describes either a supported catalyst with the required porous coating or the
bulk catalyst with a porous solid mass. The coating of Davies is a protective
coating to prevent corrosion of metal and intended to be non-porous. The
anticipation rejection is not adequately supported by the evidence relied
upon.
The Obviousness Rejection
To reject claims 4, 8, 9, 15, and 16, the Examiner relies upon Davies
in the same manner as in the anticipation rejection and further relies upon
Birkenstock. Birkenstock is directed to a supported catalyst. Birkenstock
does not remedy the deficiencies of Davies.
Moreover, the Examiner has not adequately explained why one of
ordinary skill in the art would substitute the transition metals of Birkenstock
for the zinc powder of Davies. The transition metals of Birkenstock are used
as catalysts in chemical reaction processes, a different function than the
function of the zinc powder steel protectant of Davies’ coating composition.
The obviousness rejection is not adequately supported by the evidence relied
upon.
III. CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-14, and 17-
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claims 4, 8, 9, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013