Appeal No. 1996-3423
Serial No. 08/314,471
Appellants' arguments raise the very issue of
whether the prior art suggests employing the boron,
zirconium and antimony passivating agents to increase the
combined yield of gasoline and light cycle oil.
Appellants focus on the fact that the claimed process
employs a three-component passivating agent, i.e., boron,
zirconium and antimony, in contrast to Singleton's
single-component passivating agent (i.e., boron) and
that, relying on Tables I (p. 15) and II (p. 18) of the
specification, it produces an unexpected increase in
combined yield of gasoline and light cycle oil as
compared to the process using boron alone, as in
Singleton, or any two of the boron, zirconium and
antimony passivating agents of Senn and Singleton (brief,
pp. 4-5).
Examiner rebuts appellants' arguments on the grounds
that Singleton indicates that gasoline yields increase
with the addition of boron, citing column 4, lines 59-65
and column 7, lines 24-31 as well as Table 1 of column 6.
Furthermore, "it appears as if the Singleton gasoline
product encompasses at least a substantial portion of the
claimed combined gasoline and light cycle oil product"
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007