Appeal No. 96-3431
Application No. 08/307,535
We refer to the briefs and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain the above
noted rejection.
The appellants argue that "the following limitations in the
rejected claims are missing from the cited references and render
the claimed subject matter unobvious over those cited references:
1) a fuel composition for two-cycle engines, and 2) a major
amount of fuel boiling in the gasoline range" (brief, page 11).
This argument is clearly incorrect. Miller explicitly
discloses a fuel composition for two-cycle engines comprising a
major amount of fuel boiling in the gasoline range as required by
the appealed claims (e.g., see lines 13 through 69 in column 7).
Indeed, patentee's fuel composition corresponds to the
composition defined by the independent claims on appeal in all
respects except that the former does not include the here claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007