Appeal No. 1996-3826
Application 08/222,477
containing fuel, carbon synthetic fuels, biomass derived oils and mixtures thereof in claims 1 (product)
and 13 (method), and from the group consisting of gasoline, naphtha, kerosene fuels, diesel fuels,
gaseous carbon-containing fuels, and mixtures thereof in claim 36 (method). Claims 28 through 35,
which directly or ultimately dependent on claim 13, and claims 41 through 45, which directly or
ultimately dependent on claim 36, claim a product further characterized by the process by which it is
made. Claims 2, 4 and 11, dependent on claim 1, are drawn to fuels which contain gasoline, diesel fuel
or straight run gasoline, respectively, about 40 to about 60% water, a lubricity enhancer and an
emulsion stabilizer. The lubricity enhancer can comprise at least a polyorganosilioxane compound (e.g.,
claim 3, which depends on claim 2, and claim 23, which ultimately depends on claim 13). The methods
of claims 13 and 36 require at least that the fuel and emulsifier are mixed separately from the other
ingredients. According to appellant, the aqueous fuel will reduce “pollutants produced by internal
combustion engines” (specification, e.g., page 2).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Morehouse 3,233,986 Feb. 8, 1966
Dubin 5,284,492 Feb. 8, 1994
Kawaai et al. (Kawaai)3 54-234 Jan. 5, 1979
(Japanese Kokai Pat. Publication)
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:4
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaai;
Claims 2, 4, 6 through 11, 13 through 15, 17 through 22, 24 through 27 and 36 through 40 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaai in view of Dubin;
Claims 3, 5, 12, 16 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kawaai
in view of Morehouse;
3 We refer in our opinion to the translation of Kawaai prepared for the USPTO by Diplomatic
Language Services, Inc., in May 1996.
4 While the examiner states in the answer (sequential page 2.5) that the grounds of rejection “are set
forth in the prior Office action paper number 11,” which is the Office action mailed June 1, 1995, we
find several grounds of rejection set forth in the final rejection of October 24, 1995 (Paper No. 15).
Thus, the grounds of rejection advanced on appeal are not found in the same “single prior action.” See
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1208 (6th ed., Rev. 1, Sept. 1995; 1200-14).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007