Appeal 2007-3543
Application 10/675,138
Examiner contends “[s]ince this reference silicate can also contain antimony
(see col. 2, line 60), it is deemed to be an antimony silicate,” and “since this
reference silicate can also contain niobium and/or tantalum in combination
with this antimony (see col. 2, line 60), it is deemed to be an antimony
silicate doped with niobium and/or tantalum” (id.).
Appellants contend Bedard’s material can “not be described as an
antimony silicate because it requires the presence of an alkali metal” and is
thus “a molecular sieve as it contains potassium or sodium salt,” citing, “A
in the formula in column two” (Supp. Br. 11; original emphasis omitted).
Appellants contend “[t]he dopants of claim 22 are dopants in the silicate of
antimony silicate, not replacements for antimony,” and Bedard’s material “is
a doped sodium or potassium salt, not a doped antimony salt” (id. 11).
Appellants contend the “portion of the formula shown in column 2, lines 26
and 54 and in particular that portion . . . {M(x)Ti(1-x)Ge(y)}” show that
“titanium must always be present, pointing out “[f]or example, when y is . . .
0, then M and titanium are present in equal amounts,” and “[w]hen y . . . [is]
0.75, the Ge plus titanium likewise are there” (id. 11). Appellants find that
in Bedard’s working examples, the molecular sieves contain “a substantial
amount of titanium . . . [and] do not contain antimony silicate” (id. 11-12).
Appellants contend the claim language “consisting essentially of” “excludes
titanium from antimony silicate doped” as claimed, which position is
supported by the evidence in Dr. Minihan’s Declaration1 showing “that poor
1 Appellants submitted Dr. Minihan’s “Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132”
(Minihan Declaration) with the amendment filed May 10, 2006, which
declaration was entered and considered by the Examiner even though the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013