Appeal 2007-2208
Application 10/650,510
and pyrolysis. However, the teachings of Maroldo are not limited to the
Examples. Concerning this matter, it is well settled that a reference must be
considered in its entirety, and it is well-established that the disclosure of a
reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or specific working
examples contained therein. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1,
215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750,
192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976). In this regard, we are bound to consider
the disclosure of each reference for what it fairly teaches one of ordinary
skill in the art, including not only the specific teachings, but also the
inferences which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have been
expected to draw therefrom. See In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ
507, 510 (CCPA 1966); and In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342,
344 (CCPA 1968).
Accordingly, we determine that the Examiner has presented a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to representative claim 1 that is not
persuasively rebutted by the arguments furnished in the Brief.
For each of the Examiner’s separate rejections of claims 6-8,
Appellants argue the rejected claims as a group. Thus, we select claim 6 as
the representative claim. Appellants do not contend that either of the
separately applied Zoeller patents would not be combinable with Maroldo
for suggesting the formation of a catalyst of the type recited in representative
claim 6 using the pyrolyzed sulfonated polymer beads of Maroldo as the
catalyst support. In this regard, each of the applied Zoeller patents discloses
the use of pyrolyzed sulfonated polymer beads as a catalyst support and both
Zoeller patents refer to Maroldo (U.S. Patent No. 4, 839,331), including
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013