Appeal No. 97-3640
Application No. 08/406,272
containing fluid' " (Ans. page 11, paragraph 4). "Note further that the steam-alkane mixture '6' which is
continuously flowing into the cracking furnace '7' wherein the olefin is first created, can in fact constitute
an adding of water to an olefin-containing fluid" (Ans. page 12, paragraph three).
In our view, however, there is insufficient evidence in this record of exactly what is transpiring in
the furnace in order to determine whether the process which is taking place in the furnace can
reasonably be said to include the "adding" step required by the claims. For example, if the furnace has
a flow-through feed line and a portion of the incoming feed line of alkane-steam mixture were visualized
as three sequential segments during the process, then as the first segment was emerging from the
furnace as a cracked effluent, the second segment would be within the furnace in the process of being
cracked, and the third segment would just be entering the furnace. The third segment would not appear
to be adding water/steam to either the first or the second segments. It is unclear how the second
segment could add water/steam to itself. The examiner simply has not explained how "what transpires
in cracking furnace 8" inherently adds water to an olefin-containing fluid. It is well established that
inherency cannot be established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581,
212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981) citing Hansgirg v. Kemmer, 102 F.2d 212, 214, 40 USPQ 665,
667 (CCPA 1939).
Moreover, the examiner's statement
Page 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007