Appeal 2007-3543
Application 10/675,138
expressed by the formula in terms of mole ratios of the oxides of:
aA2/nO:bM2O5:cGeO2:dTiO2:eSiO2:fH2O,” wherein A and M are as defined
in the empirical formula (id. col. 2, ll. 57-67).
On this record, we agree with Appellants that in applying the
disclosed values for the subscripts of Bedard’s empirical and reaction
formulae, Bedard’s molecular sieves would contain some amount of an
exchangeable cation and titanium. Indeed, the Examiner has not established
by scientific reasoning or evidence that either the term “antimony silicate” as
reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art would include such
ingredients, or that Bedard’s formulae would have described to one skilled
in the art and would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art
antimony silicate doped as claimed in claims 17 and 22.
Accordingly, in the absence of such reasoning and findings, the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation and of
obviousness, and thus, we reverse the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
cam
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013