Appeal No. 2002-1933
Application 09/331,417
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall together
as to each rejection (brief, pages 2-3). We therefore limit our
discussion to one claim to which each rejection applies, i.e.,
claim 15, which is the sole independent claim. See In re Ochiai,
71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir.
1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Claim interpretation
The appellants argue that their claim 15 requires that the
C5 fraction itself is the hydrocarbon mixture, and that the claim
excludes the hydrocarbon mixture being a mixture of cyclopentene
and acyclic monoolefins which have been isolated from a C5
fraction (brief, pages 7-8; reply brief, page 3).
The appellants’ specification includes “a hydrocarbon
mixture termed C5 fraction” (page 1, lines 10-11) and “the C5
fraction being subjected to a metathesis reaction” (page 10,
lines 33-34). The appellants’ claim 15, however, is broader than
the embodiment disclosed in the specification. Claim 15 merely
requires that the hydrocarbon mixture contains at least
5 wt% cyclopentene, contains acyclic monoolefins having a pentene
isomer content of at least 70 wt%, and “originates from petroleum
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007