Appeal No. 96-0112
Application 07/877,913
founded. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1 through 7, 9 through
15 and 18, but reverse the examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 8, 16, 17, 19 and 20. Our reasons for
this determination follow.
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants state that “[t]he claims do not stand or fall
together.” See Brief, page 3. However, appellants argue separately only appealed claims 8, 16, 17,
19 and 20 with a reasonable degree of specificity . See Brief, pages 3, 5 and 6. Accordingly, we have2
grouped the appealed claims as follows:
Group I - claims 1 through 7, 9 through 15 and 18; and
Group II - claims 8, 16, 17, 19 and 20.
The appealed claims in each group will stand or fall together with the broadest claim therein. See 37
CFR 1.192(c)(5) (1993); now 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7)(1997); In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2
USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The claimed subject matter is directed to a catalytic cracking process for a hydrocarbon
feedstock containing non-distillable hydrocarbons. See, e.g., claim 1. The catalytic cracking process
involves cracking the hydrocarbon feedstock at particular reaction conditions in a riser reactor and
2Claim 18, unlike claims 8, 16, 17, 19 and 20, is not directed to using a particular quenching
fluid injection for producing the aspirating or educting effect within a riser reactor, which is responsible
for reducing pressure at the base of the riser reactor. Note also that the mere reiteration of limitations
of claims 4 through 6 does not constitute a substantive separate argument that complies with the
requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(1993); now 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007