Appeal 2007-2208
Application 10/650,510
Appellants’ invention is directed to fluidizable catalyst particles
having a specified range of average particle sizes and a process for preparing
same. The particles comprise carbonized polysulfonated vinylaromatic
polymer. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A fluidizable catalyst comprising carbonized polysulfonated
vinylaromatic polymer particles in which the particles have an average
particle diameter of about 1 to about 200 micrometers (µm).
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Maroldo US 4,839,331 Jun. 13, 1989
Zoeller ('673) US 6,235,673 B1 May 22, 2001
Zoeller ('043) US 6,452,043 B1 Sep. 17, 2002
Claims 1-5 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Maroldo. Claims 6-8 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zoeller ‘043 in view of
Maroldo. Claims 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zoeller ‘673 in view of Maroldo.
We affirm the stated rejections for reasons stated in the Answer and as
further explained below.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration. Graham v. John
Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467(1966).
“[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have been
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013