Appeal No. 1997-3529 Page 5
Application No. 08/463,939
made during production of dimethyl ether is separated
therefrom by Gro$ (brief, page 7).
As explained above, the appealed claims do not merely
require that there is some water in the fuel composition, but
that water is present in a specified amount relative to the
total composition and that the weight percent of methanol in
the composition is constrained by the amount of water present.
Those limitations are lacking in Gro$’s described fuel
composition. In this regard, the examiner’s speculation
regarding the amount of water that may be present in the fuel
composition of Gro$ after a water separation step (answer,
page 7) is not sufficient to establish that the composition of
Gro$ would necessarily contain an amount of water
corresponding to that required by appellants’ claims.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by pointing
out where all of the claim limitations appear in a single
reference. Consequently, we reverse the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
In the alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Gro$, the examiner does not further explain why it would have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007