Appeal No. 96-2339
Application 08/299,391
isobutylene fraction, because it is introduced at this
position, strips the extract of MTBE (brief, pages 7-8).
Appellants provide a comparison (specification, page 40) in
which Kruse’s method produced an extract containing 11.75 wt%
MTBE and a raffinate containing 0.49 wt% methanol, whereas
appellants’ method produced an extract containing only 0.33
wt% MTBE, while producing a raffinate which, as in Kruse’s
method, contained a small concentration, i.e., 0.53 wt%, of
methanol.
The examiner argues that appellants are merely optimizing
the Kruse process (answer, pages 4-5). Varying known result-
effective variables for purposes of optimization generally is
considered to be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16
USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904,
907, 175 USPQ 93, 95 (CCPA 1972). The examiner’s argument,
however, is deficient in that the examiner has provided no
evidence that the height in the extraction zone at which
Kruse’s isobutylene fraction is fed, relative to the height at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007