Appeal 2007-1395
Application 10/328,115
Appellant contends that there is nothing in the disclosure of Lin that would
have motivated a skilled artisan to select the specific coconut oil fatty acid
amide derived from diethanolamine and use such a compound and an
effective particulate emission-reducing the amount. (Br. 9).
Appellant's contentions are not persuasive. The Specification
discloses a fuel additive can be present in the composition in amounts
ranging from 10 to 10,000 ppm by weight (Specification 11: 23-25). As
stated above, Lin discloses the fuel additive which can be present in amounts
ranging from 1 to 1000 ppm. That is, Lin’s fuel additive is present in an
effective particulate emission-reducing amount. Moreover, as recognized by
the Examiner, Lin suggests utilizing a monoamide-containing polyether
alcohol compound in a fuel composition. The Examiner cites column 15 of
Lin for describing suitable reaction components in forming the monoamine
polyether. Lin discloses that coconut amides are suitable reaction
components. Although Lin does not specifically mention Appellant’s
benefit of reducing particulate emission, such benefit would have naturally
flowed from following the suggestion of Lin. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ
58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985) (holding that the recognition of another
advantage flowing naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art
cannot be the basis for patentability when the difference would otherwise be
obvious )
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Boehmke in view of Lin. We affirm.
Claim 11 specifies the fuel composition utilized in the method of
claim 1 further comprises a nitrogen containing detergent. The Examiner
cited the Lin reference for suggesting the use of nitrogen containing
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013