Appeal 2007-2908
Application 10/379,456
brazing and welding, the details of calcining, the best ways of applying the
washcoat to the core, and other modifications within the scope of the
invention, all without much additional guidance. (Spec. ¶¶041, 042, and
049-052.)
From Liu, those in the art knew how to make an ozone-destroying
catalytic converter with a core, a high surface area refractory metal oxide
washcoat, and two or more metal catalysts in the washcoat, including two
precious metals and a transition metal.
Conclusion
When the teachings of Liu are taken as a whole, the trimetallic
catalytic converters anticipated the invention of claim 29. Since anticipation
is the ultimate of obviousness, it follows that claim 29 would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Alternatively, to the extent the choice of active metals is a difference,
Liu provides guidance to pick two precious metals in addition to a transition
metal. Liu's preferred precious metal is palladium, which along with silver
is the first active metal in claim 29. As long as silver is not selected as the
second precious metal (out of a choice of five other precious metals listed),
the combination would be within the scope of claim 29. Although the
second metal would not be chosen to destroy hydrocarbons, any choice other
than silver would inherently do so (as well as destroying ozone).
Claims 30, 31, 34-57, and 66-74 stand or fall with claim 29. Since the
obviousness rejection stands for claim 29, it stands for these claims as well.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013