Appeal 2007-2908
Application 10/379,456
washcoat including a refractory metal and one or more active metal
catalysts. The bimetallic catalysts may be oxides. All of the active metals
listed in claim 1 are either precious metal catalysts or transition metal co-
catalysts in Liu, including Liu's preferred palladium and nickel, respectively.
Most of Liu's catalysts (except palladium and silver) and all of the co-
catalysts are the metals that Honeywell lists as efficient hydrocarbon
destroying active metals. Thus, most of the possible Liu bimetallic catalysts
would inherently destroy both ozone and hydrocarbons, including Liu's
preferred bimetallic catalyst of nickel and palladium. We find that one
skilled in the art would understand the Liu patent to have taught the
invention of claim 1.
Claims 2, 3, 5-28, 58, 59, and 61-65 stand or fall with claim 1. Hence,
the anticipation rejection of these claims also stands.
OBVIOUSNESS OVER LIU
In analyzing obviousness, the scope and content of the prior art must
be determined, the differences between the prior art and the claims
ascertained, and the ordinary level of skill in the art resolved. Objective
evidence of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the claimed subject
matter (so-called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. Such
secondary considerations guard against the employment of impermissible
hindsight. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36 (1966), cited with
approval in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385
(2007). Honeywell's Appeal Brief does not rely on any objective evidence
of secondary considerations."
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013