Ex Parte Brundage et al - Page 4


               Appeal No. 2004-1939                                                                                                  
               Application 10/120,497                                                                                                

                       We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in                      
               agreement with supported position of the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed gasoline                             
               composites encompassed by appealed claim 44 would have been obvious over the combined                                 
               teachings of Jessup, Kaneko and the Phase 3 reformulated gasoline standards to one of ordinary                        
               skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made.  We add the following to the                            
               examiner’s analysis.                                                                                                  
                       We find that Jessup would have disclosed gasoline composites which can be free of the                         
               oxygenate additive MTBE, and have an octane value which can be in the range of 87 and above                           
               (e.g., col. 4, ll. 60-62, and col. 5, ll. 3-5, cols. 7-8 and 11-12).  We determine that one of ordinary               
               skill in this art would have recognized that gasoline composites disclosed by Jessup can fall                         
               within the Phase 3 reformulated gasoline standards if the sulfur content was within the specified                     
               flat limit, averaging limit or cap limit ranges, that is, zero to the specified upper limit in ppmw,                  
               when using the California Predictive Model (see above note 4).  We note that the averaging limit                      
               range for sulfur is zero to 15 ppmw.                                                                                  
                       We notice the well known fact that one of ordinary skill in this art would have desired to                    
               reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline composites for a variety of reasons known in the art.                         
               Indeed, Kaneko would have disclosed that in similar gasoline composites to those of Jessup, the                       
               sulfur content is preferably below 30 ppmw, and more preferably under 20 ppmw, and illustrates                        
               gasoline composites that contain 2, 3 and 4 ppm sulfur (col. 3, ll. 16-19; col. 8, Tables 2-4).  We                   
               find that Kaneko’s preferred sulfur range under 20 ppmw is the range of the flat limit and                            
               encompasses the range of the average limit of the Phase 3 reformulated gasoline standards, while                      
               the upper limit of 50 ppmw sulfur does fall within the cap limit range.  However, the  illustrated                    
               sulfur contents fall within the bottom of the range of the average limit of sulfur.                                   
                       Based on this substantial evidence, we find that, prima facie, one of ordinary skill in this                  
               art would have prepared gasoline composites by routinely following the teachings of Jessup                            
               using the California Phase 3 Predictive Model and the requirements of the Phase 3 reformulated                        
               gasoline standards, and thus would have reasonably prepared such composites having a sulfur                           
               content falling within the range of the average limit of the Phase 3 reformulated gasoline                            
               standards, including the lower end of that range as shown by Kaneko, that is, below 10 ppmw.                          
               See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here general                                   

                                                                - 4 -                                                                



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007