Ex Parte Caudle

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

12263864 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/263,864 11/03/2008
109171 7590 03/29/2019
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-7037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Tyler Caudle
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
B248 2670US.l (0146.7) 9036
EXAMINER
FORREST, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1732
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW TYLER CAUDLE
Appeal2018-003441
Application 12/263 ,864 1
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is BASF Corporation
(App. Br. 1).
Appeal2018-003441
Application 12/263,864
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
1--4, 6, 7, 9-17, and 19-25. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant's invention is directed to exhaust gas emission catalysts,
systems and methods for internal combustion engines. (Spec. ,r 1 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the issues on appeal:
1. A catalyst for oxidizing ammonia to nitrogen and NOx, the
catalyst comprising:
an aluminosilicate molecular sieve having a silica-to-
alumina ratio (SAR) less than about 10, the molecular sieve
comprising ion-exchanged copper and ion-exchanged platinum,
wherein the catalyst catalyzes substantially complete
conversion of ammonia at about 250 QC and above, and wherein
the catalyst catalyzes substantially complete conversion of
ammonia at about 250 QC.
(App. Br. 14).
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
1. Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 19-25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Han (WO 2007/004774 Al;
Jan. 11, 2007) in view of Long (R. Q. Long and R. T. Yang, Noble
metal (Pt, Rh, Rd) promoted Fe-ZSM-5 for selective catalytic
oxidation of ammonia to N2 at low temperatures 78 CATALYSIS
LETTERS 353-357 (2002)).
2. Claims 11, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Han in view of Long and Speronello
(US 5,024,981; June 18, 1991).
2 The Appeal Brief on page 1 indicates that "BASF Corporation" is the
assignee of record.
2
Appeal2018-003441
Application 12/263,864
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Han teaches the limitations of claim 1, except
for the catalyst comprising ion-exchanged platinum (Final Act. 5). The
Examiner specifically finds that Han discloses a catalyst comprising Y
zeolite which is a zeolite having a SAR of about 5.2 (Final Act. 5). The
Examiner further finds that Han teaches that an increase in SAR ratio lead to
a decrease in ammonia oxidation activity in paragraph 32 (Final Act. 5).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to prepare the
ammonia oxidation catalyst as taught by Han having a SAR ratio of less
than 10 since higher SAR will decrease ammonia oxidation activity (Final
Act. 5).
The Examiner finds that Han does not explicitly disclose that the
catalyst further comprises ion-exchanged platinum (Final Act. 5). The
Examiner then finds that Long, like Han, teaches a catalyst for selective
catalytic oxidation of ammonia to N2 that comprises Pt promoted Fe-ZSM-5
where the small amount of Pt is added by doping or ion-exchange to Fe-
exchanged ZSM-5 (Final Act. 6, Ans. 12). The Examiner also finds that the
catalyst comprising noble metal promoter shows higher activity at low
temperatures than unpromoted catalysts (Final Act. 6). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to prepare a low temperature
ammonia oxidation catalyst comprising platinum and copper containing
zeolite Y, as taught by Han, where the catalyst comprises ion-exchanged
platinum, as taught by Long, as the simple substitution of ion-exchanged Pt
for impregnated platinum with the reasonable expectation to produce an
3
Appeal2018-003441
Application 12/263,864
ammonia oxidation catalyst with high activity at low temperatures and high
N2 activity (Final Act. 6).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Han and Long fail to teach a catalyst
with a silica to alumina ratio less than about 10 as required by the claims
(App. Br. 9). Appellant contends that Han does not give an actual example
of a suitable silica to alumina ratio (App. Br. 10).
The preponderance of the evidence favors the Appellant's argument
of nonobviousness because the Examiner neither directs us to where Han
teaches a Y zeolite with a SAR of 5.2, nor provides evidence that establishes
that Han's Y zeolite has a SAR of about 5.2. Although Han teaches that the
SAR should not increase to avoid a decrease in ammonia oxidation activity,
the Examiner has not directed us to where Han gives any guidance on
keeping the SAR below 10 as required by the claim. In light of this gap in
the factual findings, the Examiner has not established that it would have
been obvious to keep the SAR less than 10. The only readily apparent
teaching to maintain that level of the SAR in the record is in the Appellant's
claims.
On this record, we reverse the Examiner's § 103 rejection (1 ). The
§ 103 rejection (2) of dependent claims 11, 12, 15, and 16 is reversed for the
same reasons as rejection (1 ).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision is reversed.
4
Appeal2018-003441
Application 12/263,864
ORDER
REVERSED
5