Ex Parte Wagner et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 31, 2007

10758552 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 31, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JON P. WAGNER,
YEPING CAI, AARON L. WAGNER, and
MICHAEL W. BALAKOS
____________

Appeal 2006-2735
Application 10/758,552
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: January 31, 2007

____________

Before THOMAS A. WALTZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims 1-8, 11-17, 19 and 20, the only claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134.1

1 An Oral Hearing took place on November 14, 2006.
Appeal 2006-2735
Application 10/758,552

We AFFIRM.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a catalyst composition for use in water
gas shift reactions. The claimed invention requires a catalyst to include a
primary transition metal, a transition metal promoter, and a support material
comprising cerium oxide. Claim 1, as presented in the Brief, appears below:
1. A catalyst suitable for production of hydrogen, said catalyst
consisting essentially of:

a. a primary transition metal selected from the group consisting
of Group VIII metal, a Group IB metal, cadmium and combinations
thereof, said primary transition metal being present at a predetermined
concentration [Primary TM];

b. a transition metal promoter present at a predetermined
concentration [Promoter] selected such that a ratio defined by
[Primary TM]:[Promoter] is greater than 1:1; and

c. a support material comprising cerium oxide and an additive
selected from the group consisting of gadolinium, samarium,
zirconium, lithium, cesium, lanthanum, praseodymium, manganese,
titanium, tungsten, neodymium, and a combination thereof,

wherein said transition metal and said promoter are combined with said
support material to form said catalyst.

The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Igarashi WO 00/54879 Sep. 21, 2000
Chintawar WO 00/66486 Nov. 9, 2000
Igarashi (as translated) EP 1 161 991 A1 Dec. 12, 2001
Silver US 6,455,182 B1 Sep. 24, 2002
2
Appeal 2006-2735
Application 10/758,552

The Examiner has entered the following grounds of rejection:
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 19 and 20 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Igarashi and Silver;2 and
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Igarashi, Silver and Chintawar (Answer 3-7).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above noted rejections, we make
reference to the Answer (mailed February 1, 2006) for the Examiner's
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (filed December 30,
2005) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst. Our reasons follow.
OPINION.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Igarashi and Silver. We select claim 1 as representative of
the rejected claims.
The Examiner asserts that Igarashi discloses catalysts suitable for use
in water gas shift reactions and the production of hydrogen. The catalyst
comprises platinum as a primary transition metal and rhenium as a transition
metal promoter that are supported on a zirconia metal oxide carrier (Answer
3-4). The Examiner found that the Igarashi reference describes an example
that includes platinum and rhenium in amounts that meet the presently
claimed invention (Answer 4). The Examiner asserts that the invention of
Igarashi differs from the claimed invention in that the support material is not
described as comprising cerium oxide and an additive material such as

2 When discussing the Igarashi reference the Examiner relies on
EP 1 161 991 document as an English-language equivalent of WO 00/54879.
3
Appeal 2006-2735
Application 10/758,552

zirconium dioxide (Answer 4). The Examiner cites the Silver reference for
describing improved catalyst compositions comprising cerium oxide and
zirconium oxide support material (Answer 5). Silver, like Igarashi, discloses
catalyst compositions useful in water gas shift reactions and in the
production of hydrogen. Silver discloses that metals such as platinum and
rhenium are suitable for being supported on the described catalyst support
material (Silver, col., 6, ll. 20-31).
Appellants argue that neither Igarashi, nor Silver taken alone or in
combination teach or suggest all the limitations of the claimed invention.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Igarashi provides a closed recitation of
possible metal oxide supports for use in the catalysts which exclude ceria
(Br. 3). Appellants further argue that the Silver reference does not suggest
that combinations of metals could be used on the described support material
(Br. 4).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner did not rely
on the Igarashi reference for describing the catalyst support material. The
Silver reference has been relied upon for the disclosure of the catalyst
support material. The Igarashi reference is evidence that persons of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized that a catalyst could comprise
mixtures of platinum and rhenium on the same support material. The Silver
reference is evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected that catalysts comprising platinum and rhenium would
have been suitable for support on an oxide material comprising cerium and
zirconium (see Silver, col. 6, ll. 20-31). Further, the idea of using mixtures
of the metal catalysts on the support material described in the Silver
4
Appeal 2006-2735
Application 10/758,552

reference flows logically from their having been individually taught, thus
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Kerkhoven,
626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). In light of the
foregoing and for the reasons expressed in the Answer, it is our
determination that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the argued claims on appeal.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight
in combining the teachings of Igarashi and Silver (Br. 5). This argument is
not persuasive for the reasons set forth above and in the Answer.
Claims 14-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
the combined teachings of Igarashi, Silver, and Chintawar. In response to
this ground of rejection, Appellants presented arguments directed towards
claims 13-17 and 20 (Br. 6). The arguments presented by Appellants are
substantially the same as those presented in the rejection discussed above.
Appellants have not presented arguments regarding the Examiner’s
motivation for combining the teachings of Igarashi, Silver, and Chintawar.
In support of the stated rejection, the Examiner has presented factual
determinations regarding the suitability of combining the teachings of
Igarashi, Silver, and Chintawar. (See Answer 6-7). Thus, for the reasons
presented above in our discussion of the rejection of claims 1-8, 11-13, 19,
and 20 and the reasons presented by the Examiner, we will uphold the
rejection of claims 14-17.
CONCLUSION
The prior art rejections of claims 1-8, 11-17, 19 and 20, have been
affirmed.
5
Appeal 2006-2735
Application 10/758,552

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 (a)(1)(iv)(2006).

AFFIRMED

tf/hh

SUD-CHEMIE, INC.
1600 WEST HILL STREET
LOUISVILLE, KY 40210
6