Appeal No. 2005-2465
Application 10/293,373
in context includes within its scope, all of the product produced to largely but not wholly all of
the product produced, and that of the latter term includes within its scope, free-flowing per se to
largely but not wholly free-flowing. In this respect, we find in the written description of the
specification the disclosure with respect to these terms, that the shot coke produced by the
claimed process can be substantially free flowing if it has a “coke microstructure of discrete
micro-domains having an average size of about 1 to 10 µm, preferably from about 1 to 5 µm,
somewhat like a mosaic (Figure 2 hereof),” and that a product that is not “free-flowing
anisotropic shot coke is the microstructure in Figure 1 . . . that is composed substantially of non-
discrete, or substantially large flow domains up to about 60 µm or greater in size, typically from
about 10 to 60 µm” (pages 8-9, [0020]; see also page 12, [0027]). While we find in this
disclosure some guidance with respect to the scope of the subject claim terms, we find no basis
in the preambular language or the body of claim 1 or in the written description in the
specification to read this disclosure into claim 1 as limitations. See Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054-55,
44 USPQ2d at 1027; Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321-22, 13 USPQ2d at 1322.
The disclosure in the written description in the specification does not use the claim
language “significantly increase the amount of” one or more of the specified materials in the
resid, but employs the language “substantially increase the contents of” such materials (e.g.,
page 7, [0019], and page 9, [0022]). The terms “significantly” and “substantially” in this
instance appear to have the meaning of “considerable” with the reference point being whether
the increase in the amount of the specified materials is sufficient to provide a product wherein
“substantially all of the coke produced is substantially free-flowing anisotropic shot coke” as no
other reference point is found in the claim language or in the written description in the
specification. We interpret the claim term “effective amount of time” on the basis that the
specified product is produced as well.
The principal part of British Petroleum relied on by the examiner is the Example thereof
(page 2, ll. 7-28). In the reference Example, a crude oil residue boiling above 350°C, which has
a vanadium content of 13 ppm and a Conradson carbon residue value of 7.1 %wt., is air blown at
400°F, that is, 204.4°C, for four (4) hours with “efficient dispersion of air,” resulting in a
oxidized resid feed that has an increased Conradson carbon residue value of 11.9 %wt, which
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007