Ex parte GHEYSENS et al. - Page 7




                Appeal No. 96-2808                                                                                                            
                Application 08/102,708                                                                                                        

                on the fact that t-butyl and t-amyl ethers are known fuel additives as the motivating factor.  However, we                    

                do not find this fact, in and of itself, sufficient evidence which would have motivated one skilled in the art                

                to modify Bruderreck as suggested by the examiner because we find no evidence or teaching in the prior                        

                art which would suggest the desirability of making such a modification.  The mere fact that the prior art                     

                could be modified does not make such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability                    

                for using Leum’s method in place of Bruderreck’s method.   In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221                               

                USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).   On the record before us, the suggestion to substitute the method                          

                of preparing the ether mixture in accordance with the teachings of Leum for the blending method disclosed                     

                by  Bruderreck could have only come from appellants’ disclosure.  Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection                       

                of claims 21-26, 29 and 30 over the applied prior art is reversed.                                                            

                         As for claims 31, 38 and 39, these claims are directed to a product comprising a mixed ether and                     

                gasoline.  Because the products recited in these claims are recited in terms of the process for making them,                  

                the claims are in product-by-process form.  The patentability of such claimed subject matter is determined                    

                based on the product itself, and not on the process of making it.  See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697,                       

                227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or                           

                obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was                      

                made by a different process.”).  Whether a rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, when appellants’                      

                product and that of the prior art appear to be identical or substantially identical, the burden shifts to                     

                appellant to provide evidence that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess the relied                

                                                                     -7-                                                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007