Appeal No. 96-2808
Application 08/102,708
The Claimed Subject Matter
The claims on appeal are directed to an ether and gasoline composition and the method for
producing the same. Claims 21, 26, 31, and 39 are representative of the claimed subject matter and read
as follows:
21. A method for producing a mixed ether and gasoline containing composition
to form an oxygenated fuel mixture comprising the steps of reacting a mixture containing
C -C alcohols with an alkene, to form an alkyl-t-alkyl mixed ether composition; and
1 8
mixing said ether composition with gasoline.
26. The method of claim 21 comprising the additional step of reacting a
hydrocarbon containing source stream to produce said alcohol mixture.
31. A mixed ether and gasoline containing composition formed by the method of:
reacting a hydrocarbon containing source stream to produce a mixture comprising
C -C alcohols;
1 8
18reacting said mixture with an alkene selected from the group consisting of
isobutylene, isoamylene, isoprene, cyclopentadiene and mixtures thereof, to form a mixed
ether reaction product; and
mixing said reaction product with gasoline.[2]
39. The mixed ether and gasoline composition of claim 31 wherein said mixed
ether reaction product is mixed with gasoline to form a 15% (v/v) mixture based on said
gasoline.
2Claim 31 as it appears in this decision is copied from appellants’ appendix to the brief. We note that claim 31
as it was amended in amendment “F” (paper no. 21) after the first Office action on the merits includes an extra closed
bracket (]) in line 2 of the claim between “an” and “oxygenated.” A second closed bracket appears in line 4 after
“product.” The examiner did not question the subject matter set forth of claim 31 as it appears in the appendix of
appellants’ brief and indicated that it was correct (answer: p. 2). Thus, we conclude that the inclusion of the extra closed
bracket as per the amendment was inadvertent. However, in the event of further prosecution of claim 31 in this
application, appellants should take corrective action to remedy this matter to eliminate any question of ambiguity with
respect to how appellants intended to amend claim 31after the first Office action.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007