Appeal 2007-2908
Application 10/379,456
according to Honeywell. Thus, simply following Liu's teachings would
usually produce a washcoat that destroys both ozone and hydrocarbons. The
prior art and the applicant may arrive at the same compositions for different
reasons without making the compositions themselves any less obvious. In re
Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-94, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901-02 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(en banc); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Thus, Honeywell's argument that "there would be no
motivation…to come up with a different combination of active metal
catalysts to destroy both ozone and hydrocarbons" (Br. 24) is at best
misplaced since Liu teaches the same combinations albeit for different
reasons.
When Liu's teachings are taken as a whole, there is no material
difference between many of Liu's trimetallic catalytic converters and the
subject matter of claim 29.
Ordinary level of skill in the art
We look to the evidence of record—the applicant's disclosure, the
cited references, and any declaration testimony—in resolving the ordinary
level of skill in the art. Ex parte Jud, 2006 WL 4080053 at *2 (BPAI)
(rehearing with expanded panel). In this appeal, there is no testimony. We
focus on what those in the art knew and could do.
The specification shows that the basic idea of a catalytic converter
with an ozone-reducing washcoat was known for airplane bleed air systems.
The need to reduce hydrocarbons, and at least one way to do so, were also
known in the art. (Spec. ¶¶004-007.) The specification expresses
confidence that those in the art understand design and fabrication choices,
such as the use of segmented monoliths for the core, the best methods of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013