Appeal No. 97-3640
Application No. 08/406,272
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double-patenting over claims 1-25 (now 1-3, 5-9
and 12-25) of copending Application no. 08/162,241 in view of Cheron.
OTHER MATTERS
In the event of further prosecution, appellant and the examiner are advised to consider whether
the recycle propane and/or ethane from line 2 of Skraba contains a small but definite amount of olefin
carried over from the fractionation system 26 such that adding steam 4 to the combined feed line 6
provides a step of "adding" water to an olefin-containing fluid, i.e., line 2.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner (1) to reject claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Skraba is reversed; (2) to reject claims 1-5, 9-11 and 16-19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Skraba in view of Strack is reversed; (3) to reject claims 23-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over McKernan in view of Jones is reversed; (4) to reject
claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over HP in view of Cheron is sustained as to
claims 1-11 and 13-25, and reversed as to claim 12; and, (5) to provisionally reject claims 1-25 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double-patenting over claims 1-25 (now claims 1-3,
5-9 and 12-25) of copending Application no. 08/162,241 is vacated as to claims 1-11 and 13-25,
and reversed as to claim 12.
Page 22
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007