11353172 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014)

Ex Parte Iwasaki

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 2014

11353172 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/353,172 02/14/2006 Tomio Iwasaki 500.45927X00 6028 20457 7590 12/19/2014 ANTONELLI, TERRY, STOUT & KRAUS, LLP 1300 NORTH SEVENTEENTH STREET SUITE 550 ARLINGTON, VA 22209-3873 EXAMINER TAKEUCHI, YOSHITOSHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte TOMIO IWASAKI ________________ Appeal 2013-002946 Application 11/353,172 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, KAREN M. HASTINGS, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–7, 9, 10 and 17–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellant claims an exhaust gas treatment system. Claim 9 is illustrative: 9. An exhaust gas treatment system for internal combustion engines, comprising an exhaust gas supply section for supplying exhaust gases from an internal combustion engine and a catalytic converter into which the exhaust gases supplied by the exhaust gas supply section are charged, wherein the catalytic converter contains a catalyst structure for treating the Appeal 2013-002946 Application 11/353,172 2 exhaust gases, comprising a carrier, nano-dots formed on the carrier, catalyst particles formed on the nano-dots and a coating material formed in contact with each of the catalyst particles, wherein the nano-dots and the catalyst particles comprise MoC or TaC, the carrier comprises W or Mo, the catalyst particles have a size of 2.6 nm to 4.2 nm, and the coating material comprises DNA molecule or carbon nano-horn, and a relative difference in lattice constant between the carrier material and the nano-dot material is 1% to 16%. The References Gorynin US 5,204,302 Apr. 20, 1993 Iwasaki EP 1 492 183 A2 Dec. 29, 2004 The Rejection Claims 4–7, 9, 10, and 17–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Iwasaki in view of Gorynin. OPINION We affirm the rejection. The Appellant argues (Br. 6): [T]he Gorynin et al. patent merely discloses that the metal substrate 11 (which, according to the logic in the office action with respect to the elements of Iwasaki et al., would appear to correspond to the carrier of the present invention) can be any metal provided that it is thermally stable, e.g., stainless steel [col. 4, ll. 64-68]. This is clearly different from the present invention in which “the carrier comprises W or Mo.” Nor is there any apparent reason to modify the Gorynin et al. patent to provide a metal substrate that comprises W or Mo. The Examiner has explained why it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to substitute molybdenum, as taught by Gorynin, for nickel, titanium, aluminum, or cobalt in the carrier of Iwasaki” (Final Rejection mailed Dec. 6, 2011, pp. 4–5; Ans. 4) or “to use Appeal 2013-002946 Application 11/353,172 3 molybdenum as the carrier material in conjunction with a substitute catalyst such as MoC.” Id.1 Establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires an apparent reason to modify the prior art as proposed by the Examiner. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner has provided such an apparent reason and the Appellant does not address it, let alone indicate reversible error therein. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection. DECISION/ORDER The rejection of claims 4–7, 9, 10, and 17–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Iwasaki in view of Gorynin is affirmed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED lp 1 We incorporate herein the Final Rejection mailed Dec. 6, 2011 and the Examiner’s Answer.