Ex parte ADEWUYI et al. - Page 8



              Appeal No. 95-2227                                                                                        
              Application No. 08/048,964                                                                                

            appellants acknowledge at paragraphs 10-18 of the Adewuyi declaration of June 4, 1993, the                  
            specific parameters relating to temperature, pressure, residence time, and feed stock used                  
            in comparing the process of Rosinski and the claimed process.   All would appear to be                      
            process parameters, which would affect the final product, and yet are not reflected in the                  
            limitations in claim 1, 10 and 16.  Should further prosecution occur, the examiner should                   
            carefully review the evidence of record or subsequently submitted evidence to determine if                  
            the evidence is in fact commensurate with the claimed subject matter.                                       
            Claims 18-20:                                                                                               

                   Appellants have separately argued the patentability of claims 18, 19, and 20.  The                   
            examiner has not separately addressed these claims in the statement of rejection.  However,                 
            in rebuttal to appellants' arguments in the Brief, he states (Answer, page 6):                              
                          Therefore, it is the examiner's position that one of ordinary skill in the art                
                   would monitor the product composition including the amounts of methane,                              
                   butadiene, normal olefins, and cyclic olefins and vary the amount of additive to                     
                   optimize the product composition.  It is the examiner's position that the claimed                    
                   process is an optimization of the process parameters disclosed by Rosinski et                        
                   al. with this optimization being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.                      

                   The examiner offers no other support for the proposition that the claims are obvious                 
            over Rosinski alone or in combination with Young.  We find nothing in either reference which                
            would suggest that one skilled in this art should monitor either the "C7 to C10 normal to C7 to             
            C10 cyclic olefin ratio" or "the methane and butadiene" produced by a cracking process with                 
            a view to controlling the amount of ZSM-5 present in the claimed process.                                   
                   The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of                            
            obviousness.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444                                      

                                                           8                                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007