Appeal No. 1996-3423
Serial No. 08/314,471
predictive from the prior art disclosures, and that there
is an uncontested showing of unexpected results from
using the claimed three-component passivating agent as a
means of increasing the combined yield of gasoline/light
cycle oil, on balance we find that the evidence weighs in
favor of a finding of nonobviousness over the prior art
combination. For this reason, the rejection is reversed.
Claims 31, 32, 34, 37-39 and 46-51 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Hettinger in view of Singleton and Boston.
This rejection is similar to the first rejection and
is reversed for the same reasons. Where Senn, in the
earlier rejection taught the zirconium and antimony
passivating agents, here Hettinger teaches the zirconium
and Boston teaches the antimony agents. Singleton, as in
the other rejection, is applied to show that adding a
boron as an additional passivating agent would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill but, as in the previous
rejection, it does not teach or suggest the claimed
increase in the combined yield of gasoline/light cycle
oil and we can not predict from their disclosures that
this will occur. The showing of unexpected results is
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007