Appeal No. 96-2339
Application 08/299,391
which the MTBE-containing feed to the extraction zone is fed,
was a known result-effective variable. Kruse discloses only
introducing the entire feed at the same point.
The examiner argues that the extraction steps of Kruse
and appellants are the same and produce the same results due
to the same reactants being treated the same, and that Kruse’s
method and that of appellants, therefore, are equivalents
(answer, page 5). This argument is not well taken because,
first, the examiner does not give weight to the requirement in
appellants’ claims that the second isobutylene recycle
fraction is fed to the methanol extraction tower at a point
about 1 to 3 theoretical plates below the point of
introduction of the isobutylene conversion product. All
limitations must be given effect when interpreting claims.
See In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 501, 190 USPQ 214, 217 (CCPA
1976); In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262-3, 180 USPQ 789, 791
(CCPA 1974); In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545,
548 (CCPA 1970). The examiner has provided no reason why
Kruse would have fairly suggested this limitation to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Second, as discussed above,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007