Ex Parte Augustine

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 29, 2011

11346500 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 29, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte STEVEN M. AUGUSTINE
__________

Appeal 2010-006567
Application 11/346,500
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, CHUNG K. PAK, and
JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2010-006567
Application 11/346,500

2
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from an Examiner’s decision
finally rejecting claims 1and 3-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The subject matter on appeal relates to a method for preparing a
supported palladium-gold catalyst (claims 1, 3-15, and 17) and a catalyst
prepared by the claimed method (claim 16). Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative.
1. A method for preparing a supported palladium-gold
catalyst, said method comprising

(a) sulfating a titanium dioxide support with a
sulfating agent selected from the group consisting of persulfuric
acid, its salts, and mixtures thereof;

(b) calcining the sulfated support;

(c) impregnating the calcined support with a
palladium salt, a gold salt, and an alkali metal or ammonium
compound;

(d) calcining the impregnated support; and

(e) reducing the calcined support from step (d) to form
the supported palladium-gold catalyst.

Br., Claims Appendix.2
The only Examiner’s rejection before us on appeal is the rejection of
claims 1 and 3-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the
combination of Augustine,3 Scheben,4 and Dorawala.5

2 Appeal Brief dated August 10, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006567
Application 11/346,500

3
B. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Augustine
Augustine discloses a method for preparing supported palladium-gold
catalysts used for the vapor phase reaction of ethylene, acetic acid, and
oxygen to produce vinyl acetate. Augustine 1:14-17.
The Examiner finds that the method disclosed in Augustine comprises
the steps recited in claim 1 with the exception of step (a), i.e., “sulfating a
titanium dioxide support with a sulfating agent selected from the group
consisting of persulfuric acid, its salts, and mixtures thereof.” Ans. 5.6
2. Scheben
Scheben discloses a catalyst composition containing a catalytically
effective amount of a palladium metal and sulfur modifiers. The disclosed
catalyst composition is used for producing acetic acid. Scheben 2:23-27.
Scheben discloses that the catalytically effective palladium metal and
sulfur modifiers may be deposited on or impregnated in a catalyst carrier,
such as titania or alumina. Scheben 3:43-62.
Scheben discloses that a combined palladium-gold catalyst is
preferably used. Scheben 3:65-4:3.
Scheben discloses that “certain sulfur containing modifiers show
utility in modifying the noble metal catalyst in a manner to promote the
oxidation of ethylene to acetic acid and to prevent the complete oxidation of
ethylene to carbon oxides and water.” Scheben 4:6-10.

3 US 6,022,823 issued February 8, 2000.
4 US 3,970,697 issued July 20, 1976.
5 US 4,139,491 issued February 13, 1979.
6 Examiner’s Answer dated September 16, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006567
Application 11/346,500

4
The Examiner finds that the disclosed sulfur modifiers do not include
persulfuric acid, salts of persulfuric acid, or mixtures thereof as recited in
claim 1. Ans. 6.
3. Dorawala
Dorawala discloses an alumina catalyst support which “permits
attainment of desired levels of conversion, yield, and selectivity in
hydrocarbon conversion processes, typically steam-dealkylation.” Dorawala
1:10-15.
Dorawala discloses that “substantially pure” aluminas are used for the
support. These aluminas contain little or no measurable content of metal
impurities. Dorawala 1:55-62.
In a typical “substantially pure” alumina, the principle impurity is
titanium dioxide in an amount of 150 to 700 parts per million. Dorawala
2:30-32.
Dorawala discloses that a catalytic amount of sulfate anion may be
added to the alumina together with at least one catalytically acceptable
cation. Dorawala 3:17-19.
Sulfate precursors include persulfates, such as persulfuric acid or
fuming sulfuric acid. Dorawala 3:67-4:8.
Dorawala discloses that oxides of a Group VIII metal, including
palladium, may be distributed on the alumina support. Dorawala 5:50-60.
C. DISCUSSION
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to modify the teachings
of Augustine et al. by incorporating therein the step of adding a
sulfur modifier to the support, such as persulfuric acid or a
persulfate, as suggested by Scheben et al. and Dorawala et al.,
Appeal 2010-006567
Application 11/346,500

5
as said modifiers show utility in modifying the noble metal
catalyst in a manner to promote the oxidation of ethylene to
acetic acid, and to prevent the complete oxidation of ethylene to
carbon oxides and water.

Ans. 6.
Augustine discloses supported palladium-gold catalysts for use in
producing vinyl acetate, not acetic acid as in the process of Scheben.
Augustine 1:14-17. Moreover, as pointed out by the Appellants, the alumina
supported catalyst disclosed in Dorawala is used in a hydrocarbon
conversion process such as steam dealkylation. Br. 4, 5.
The Appellants argue that Dorawala does not disclose a palladium-
gold catalyst or indicate that the disclosed sulfate treatment is useful for a
titania support. The Appellants argue that an alumina support is
substantially different from a titania support and a catalyst for hydrocarbon
conversion is substantially different from a catalyst for vinyl acetate
production. The Appellants argue that the Examiner does not provide any
evidence showing that the sulfate treatment disclosed in Dorawala can be
used for treating the titania support of Augustine with the expectation that
the catalyst of Augustine will be improved in the same manner as the
catalyst disclosed in Dorawala. Br. 5.
The Appellants’ argument is supported by the record on appeal. That
is, the Examiner does not direct us to any evidence establishing that the
catalysts disclosed in Augustine, Scheben, and Dorawala are used in such
similar processes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected
the sulfate treatment disclosed in Dorawala to improve the activity of
Augustine’s catalyst in the same manner as disclosed in Dorawala, e.g., by
increasing yield and selectivity. See In re Slocombe, 510 F.2d 1398, 1404
Appeal 2010-006567
Application 11/346,500

6
(CCPA 1975) (catalytic effects are a particularly unpredictable aspect of
chemistry). For this reason, the § 103(a) rejection will be reversed.
D. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

sld

LyondellBasell Industries
Legal IP Department
1221 McKinney Street
One Houston Center
Houston TX 77010