Ex parte GHEYSENS et al. - Page 10




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

                significant.  Moreover,  the T90 data for gasolines containing single ethers with alkyl components having                     

                one to five carbon atoms as set forth in appellants’ Table 1 on page 13 of the specification reveals T90                      

                values ranging from  -3E [ethyl-t-butyl ether (#602) and n-propyl-t-butyl ether (#603)] to -33E [sec-butyl-                   

                t-butyl ether (#607)].  Accordingly, we find that the T90 data in Tables 1, 3 and 5 are inconclusive to show                  

                unexpected or superior results.                                                                                               

                         The same is true for the end boiling point data.  Compare “MIX1” and “MIX2” in Table 5 (-12E                         

                and -8E, respectively) to samples #611 (-13E), #630 (-15E), #614 (-16E) and #629 (-17E) in Table 3.                           

                We find the numbers for the samples  to be substantially similar to “MIX1”/gasoline which is closest to the                   
                claimed composition.   Also compare the compositions in Table 3 which have end boiling point numbers7                                                                                                      

                ranging from -13E to -24E to samples #607, #608 and #609 in appellants’ Table 1 (-32E, -32E, -30,E                            

                respectively) where the end boiling point number substantially exceeds the end boiling point numbers of                       

                appellants’ samples #614 and #628 (-16E and -24E, respectively).  Accordingly, we do find the end boiling                     

                point data to be inconclusive to establish that the claimed compositions are superior or have unexpected                      

                properties when compared to the Bruderreck’s compositions.                                                                    

                         For the foregoing reasons, Bruderreck presents a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to                      

                the rejection of claims  31 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  On consideration of all the evidence, the greater                  



                         “MIX1” or Bruderreck’s B1 formula is closest to the claimed composition because the ether mixture does not7                                                                                                                   
                include a significant amount of alcohols in the ether mixture.  “MIX2” or Bruderreck’s formula B2 contains, in addition       
                to the ethers of formula B1, 5% by volume methanol, 5% by volume isopropanol and 5% by volume sec-butanol.                    
                Appellants have not disclosed that their ether mixtures contain a significant amount of free alcohol.                         
                                                                    -10-                                                                      





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007