Appeal No. 1997-3337
Application No. 08/189,899
proposition that process steps in a product claim are limiting
to the extent they further define the structure of the claim.
In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 965-966 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). Thus, the ignition promoter required by claims 17
and 24 can be formed by a process which is not the same as the
process stated in the claims. The appellants urge the
ignition promoter of claim 17 and contained in the fuel
composition of claim 24 is not the same as the ignition
promoter of Stiff or obvious over the combination of Stiff,
Muller ‘027, Muller‘881 and Waniczek. (Brief, paragraph
bridging pages 18 and 19, and page 20, firs full paragraph).
As stated above, we do not believe it is obvious to modify the
prior art as suggested by the Examiner to form a nitro-ester
compound. The Examiner has not asserted that the ignition
promoter described by Stiff is the same as the ignition
promoter of claim 17 and contained in the fuel composition of
claim 24. We acknowledge that Stiff describes nitrato
compounds containing sugar derivatives which function as an
ignition promoter and fuel compositions containing these
nitrato compounds. (Stiff, page 2, lines 5-11, page 4, lines
8-18, and page 9, lines 10-13). However, we have not been
directed to a basis to believe the ignition promoter described
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007