Appeal 2007-3543
Application 10/675,138
one or more elements selected from the group consisting of tungsten,
niobium, and tantalum” in claim 22, and the same language coupled with a
specified process for preparing the same in claim 17; and whether Bedard
would have prima facie described this material to one skilled in the art or
suggested this material to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have “at
once envisaged a mixture of antimony and niobium or tantalum as the metal
component of the . . . silicate material” disclosed by Bedard as Appellants
have “not shown that the presence of titanium in the recited material would
materially change the characteristics” of the claimed material (Answer 3,
citing Bedard, col. 2, ll. 59-61; original emphasis omitted). The Examiner
further contends one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected “a
combination of antimony with niobium or tantalum as constituent ‘M’ in
[Bedard], since this reference clearly suggests such a mixture of elements;”
and would have employed “a silicon compound, an antimony compound,
and a compound of niobium or tantalum to prepare this reference material,
since this reference material (i.e. crystalline silicate) clearly requires the
presence of silicon, antimony and niobium or tantalum” (id. 3-4). The
Examiner contends one of ordinary skill would have used silicic acid as the
silicon compound (id. 4). In response to Appellants’ arguments, the
Examiner contends “the terms ‘molecular sieve’ and ‘silicate’ are not
mutually exclusive,” “[m]olecular sieves are very often silicates (e.g.
aluminosilicates),” and “the molecular sieve material of Bedard clearly
contains silicon bonded to oxygen (see the formula in line 53 of col. 2); [sic]
and therefore, this reference material is deemed to be a silicate” (id. 5). The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013