Appeal No. 2000-2079
Application 08/883,634
OPINION
The aforementioned rejection is affirmed as to claims 1
and 14-32, and reversed as to claims 2-5 and 8-13. Because our
rationale regarding the affirmed rejection differs substantially
from that of the examiner, we denominate the affirmance as
involving a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall in the
following groups: 1) claims 1, 31 and 32; 2) claims 2 and 10-12,
3) claims 3-5; 4) claims 6 and 7; 5) claims 8 and 9; 6) claim 13;
7) claims 14, 15 and 22-25; 8) claims 16-18; 9) claims 19 and 20;
10) claim 21; 11) claims 26-28; 12) claims 29 and 30 (brief,
pages 7-9). We therefore limit our discussion of the claims for
which the rejection is affirmed to one claim in each relevant
group, i.e., claims 1, 14, 16, 19, 21, 26 and 29. See In re
Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed.
Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Claims 1, 14, 16, 19 and 29
Shubkin discloses a fuel composition comprising a lubricity
increasing amount of an N-hydroxymethyl C12-36 aliphatic
hydrocarbylamide which can be N,N-bis(hydroxymethyl)stearylamide
(col. 1, lines 33-35; col. 2, line 1). The fuel can be diesel
fuel or gasoline used to operate internal combustion engines
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007