Appeal 2006-3272
Application 09/789,149
1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d
1465, 1468-469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1577-578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re
Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302-303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Based on the overlap of the constituents and amounts required for the
claimed composition and that disclosed by Kaneko, we agree with the
Examiner that the representative claim 1 composition is prima facie obvious
over Kaneko.
Appellants maintain that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to employ amounts of diisopropylbenzene in amounts less than 0.5
weight percent (the most preferred amounts disclosed by Kaneko) after
selecting such a component from 34 other alternatives disclosed by Kaneko
(Br. 3 and Reply Br. 1). Appellants argue that such a disclosure/teaching
would not have suggested formulating the gasoline composition with 0.3–10
weight percent diisopropylbenzene, as required by representative claim 1.
For the reasons set forth above, we are not persuaded of reversible error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection by this line of argument. Moreover,
we note that the teachings of Kaneko are not limited to the examples.
Furthermore, we have no doubt that the properties, including the heat of
combustion and carbon content, of a known combustible material such as
diisopropylbenzene, as well as other gasoline combustible components, are
either well-known by or would have been readily determinable by one of
ordinary skill in the gasoline formulation art. Thus, one of ordinary skill in
the art would be capable of predictably assessing the expected carbon
dioxide output upon burning a particular quantity of a gasoline formulation
containing such fuel components.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013