Appeal 2007-2908
Application 10/379,456
anodized layer, and an ozone-destroying catalyst impregnated in the
washcoat layer. (Liu 2:10-14.) The washcoat is formed from a slurry
including a refractory metal oxide and an organosilane resin. (Liu 2:29-48.)
Suitable refractory metal oxides for the washcoat include alumina, silica,
aluminum silicate, magnesia, manganese oxide, titania, zirconia and ceria.
(Liu 6:8-14.)
Liu teaches that the catalyst may be a precious metal or bimetallic
catalyst including oxides. Suitable precious metals include palladium,
platinum, rhodium, gold, iridium, and silver. Transition metal co-catalysts
include nickel, manganese, cobalt, iron, and copper. (Liu 3:51-4:2.)
Honeywell urges a distinction between the refractory metal oxide
washcoat of Liu and claim 1's active metal oxide washcoat based on
morphology and crystal phase. (Br. 15-16; Reply 6-7.) The argument is not
supported with evidence and is not commensurate with the reasonable scope
of the claim. First, the argument posits differences between active metals
and refractory metals, but points to no support in the record for this
difference. There is no expert testimony in the record and we cannot accept
attorney argument. Honeywell has not pointed us to a basis in its
specification or in the cited references. If anything the specification and
references support the rejection. Both the specification and Liu teach a
washcoat of a refractory metal with active metals included. This
formulation for the washcoat is consistent with claim 1. Thus, even if there
is a relevant difference between a refractory metal and an active metal, the
washcoat may reasonably contain both.
Liu teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu teaches an ozone-
destroying catalytic converter (the claimed ozone-destroying system)
comprising a (claimed) core, an (unclaimed) anodized layer, a (claimed)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013