Appeal No. 96-0112
Application 07/877,913
1 through 7, appellants have not offered any evidence or any sound scientific reasoning to conclude
that the predicted results based on limited specific reaction variables can reasonably be extrapolated to
support the plethora of reactions conditions, including multifarious feedstocks, covered by the appealed
claim.
Thus, having considered all of the evidence of record, we determine that the evidence of
obviousness regarding the subject matter defined by claims 1 through 7, 9 through 15 and 18, on
balance, outweighs the evidence of nonobviousness. Hence, we agree with the examiner that the
subject matter defined by claims 1 through 7, 9 through 15 and 18 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 through 7, 9
through 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The rejection of claims 8, 16, 17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the disclosure of
Owen, however, is on a different footing. Claims 8, 17, 19 and 20 require injection of a quenching fluid
at a velocity of at least 200 feet per second in a downstream direction relative to fluid flow in the riser
reactor. According to page 20, lines 10-23, of the specification, injecting the quenching fluid in this
manner provides some eduction effect. Claim 16 also requires injecting a quenching fluid in such a
manner to reduce the pressure at the base and upstream of the quench point by at least 0.5 psia
(educting effect). Further, claims 8 and 20 specifically require occurrence of either the educting or
aspirating effect. Nowhere does Owen, however, describe the claimed injection technique or the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007