Appeal No. 1997-3529 Page 6
Application No. 08/463,939
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the composition of Gro$ such that the herein claimed
composition would result from such modification. Accordingly,
we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
§ 103 Rejection over Norton, Neely and Brown
Similar to the discussion regarding the Gro$ patent
above, the applied Norton patent simply does not teach or
suggest a diesel fuel composition containing an amount of
dimethyl ether, methanol and water as herein claimed. We note
that the examiner particularly refers to examples 1, 3, 4 and
5.1 of Norton (answer, page 4). However, our review of those
examples reveals that the compositions of examples 1, 2 and 4
of Norton included only 5% dimethyl ether and example 5.1
included 20% dimethyl ether, not 85-95% as herein claimed.
Also, no water was described as being present in any of those
examples. Examples 2 and 4 did not even include methanol, let
alone an amount thereof within the herein claimed range.
Neely and Brown do not make-up for the deficiencies of Norton.
Neely is concerned with a priming fuel and does not teach that
priming fuel contains water in the amount herein claimed.
Brown is concerned with high octane gasoline that includes a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007