Appeal 2007-2908
Application 10/379,456
rejection that includes these two claims, however, we do not reach this
separate rejection of claims 62 and 63.
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as having been
anticipated by—
Di-Jia Liu, Daniel R. Winstead, and Peter M. Michalakos,
Environmental control system including ozone-destroying
catalytic converter having anodized and washcoat layers, US
6,576,199 B1 (issued 10 June 2003) (Liu).
Claims 62 and 63 are also objects of this rejection.
The subject matter of claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as having been obvious in view of the Liu patent.
Claims 1 and 29 stand rejected for obviousness-type double-patenting
in view of claims 1-9 of the Liu patent.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 29 stand rejected under § 103(a) as
having been obvious in view of—
George R. Lester and Stephen T. Homeyer, Catalytic converter
with metal monolith having an integral catalyst, US 6,203,771
B1 (issued 20 March 2001) (Lester).
The subject matter of claim 62 stands rejected under § 103(a) as
having been obvious in view of the Lester patent and of—
Chung-Zong Wan and Joseph C. Dettling, Stabilized alumina
catalyst support coatings, U.S. 4,677,095 (issued 30 June 1987)
(Wan).
ANTICIPATION
The Liu patent is directed to an ozone-destroying catalytic converter
comprising a core, an anodized layer on the core, a washcoat layer on the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013