Appeal 2007-4100
Application 09/962,971
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(viii) (2004). In fact, the Appellants have indicated
“none” at the Evidence Appendix section of the Brief for the evidence relied
upon in the Brief. Accordingly, we need not consider the Utamapanya
literature not provided by the Appellants.
Even if we were to consider the literature evidence in question, our
conclusion would not be altered. As is apparent from our discussion above,
Klabunde teaches forming a pellet from the types of gels recommended by
Utamapanya. The Appellants simply have not pointed to any part of
Utamapanya which contradicts Klabunde’s teaching relating to the
desirability of pelletizing the material of the type discussed in Benjamin (Br.
12). Moreover, the Appellants’ reliance on Utamapanya to highlight a
process by which pellets are made is of no moment as the claims on appeal
are directed to a product, i.e., a unit containing an adsorbent/catalyst pellet.
The Appellants have also referred to page 3, paragraphs 0036 and
0037 of the unknown published application as describing the formation of a
paste having highly organized crystalline needle-like structure recovered
from an aqueous suspension (Br. 18). However, the Appellants have not
supplied any copy of this evidence in the Evidence Appendix section of the
Brief as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(viii) (2004). As noted above, the
Appellants have indicated “none” at the Evidence Appendix section of the
Brief for the evidence relied upon in the Brief. Accordingly, we need not
consider the unknown published application not provided by the Appellants.
In any event, the claims on appeal, as broadly recited, do not preclude
crushing the structure into the powder form and shaping the resulting
powder.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013