Appeal No. 96-2808
Application 08/102,708
volume of Bruderreck’s B1 and B2 ether mixtures (col. 4, lines 21-42) are added to Unocal89 gasoline.
Bruderreck’s B1 and B2 formulations in Table 5 are labeled as “MIX1” and “MIX2,” respectively.
Appellants focus on the T90 and final boiling point data (brief: p. 11-12; Table 1, paper no. 19) and
compare values for the data in Table 5 with the data for samples #614 and #628 in Table 3 on page 21
of the specification to show that their claimed composition is unexpectedly superior to Bruderreck’s
gasoline-ether mixtures. According to appellants, “[a]s discussed in the present specification, those skilled
in the art are well aware that lower T90 and end boiling point numbers are highly desirable, since lower[4]
boiling points assist in minimizing the formation of key pollutants during combustion (see specification p. 22,
lines 9-10)” (brief: p. 11). 5
Bruderreck’s T90 values for the “MIX1”/gasoline and “MIX2”/gasoline compositions in Table 5
are -4E and -8E, respectively. Appellants’ T90 data in Table 3 for samples #614 and #628 are -3E
(#628) and -11E (#614) . However, we note that also in Table 3, which represent the claimed invention,6
samples #611 and #630 are -8E, which is the same as the value for “MIX2”/gasoline in Table 5. Also, we
find that the T90 value for sample #614 is so close to the value for “MIX1”/gasoline, the difference is not
In their brief, appellants use the terms “end boiling point” number and “end point” number interchangably.4
In Table 1, paper no. 19, appellants use the terms “end point” number and “final boiling point” number interchangably.
For purposes of our discussion of the data, we will refer to this number as “end boiling point.”
While appellants refer to the terms “T90” and “end boiling point numbers” as indicators that their5
gasoline/ether composition is superior to the prior art compositions, we note that these terms have not been defined by
appellants in their specification.
In Table 1 (paper no. 19) submitted with appellants’ response to the first Office action on the merits, appellants6
represented the T90 value for sample #628 as -13E. This is in error and should have been -3E (i.e. 339E-336E).
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007