Appeal 2007-3383
Application 10/452,939
and catalyst A as being alumina impregnated with iron sulfate (catalyst C)
and a TiO2 catalyst with CaSO4 (catalyst A), respectively (Specification 7).
Furthermore, the Kasztelan Declaration indicates that the amounts of each of
the catalysts are present in Reactors 1 and 2 as 50% of the volume
(Kasztelan Declaration 2).
In contrast, Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 38 do not specify
the amount or type of catalyst used (claims 1 and 38). In fact, claims 1 and
38 do not specify the composition of catalyst A (i.e., the second catalyst).
Accordingly, we find the evidence of nonobviousness provided in the
Kasztelan Declaration does not outweigh the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s following rejections: (1) the
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15-22, 28-31 and 34 over Tellier
in view of Burmaster and Michel, and (2) the § 103(a) rejection of claims
38, 40, and 42 over Tellier in view of Burmaster and Michel.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER TELLIER IN VIEW OF
BURMASTER, MICHEL AND VOIRIN
Appellants do not separately argue the rejection of dependent claims
2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 23-27, 39, and 41 over Tellier in view of Burmaster, Michel
and Voirin. Rather Appellants rely on their arguments made regarding the
rejection of claim 1 from which dependent claims 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 23-27, 39,
and 41 ultimately depend.
As noted above, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments and
evidence regarding the rejection of claim 1 under § 103(a) over Tellier in
view of Burmaster and Michel. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s §
103(a) rejection of claims 2, 4, 9, 12, 14, 23-27, 39, and 41 over Tellier in
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013