Appeal No. 2000-2079
Application 08/883,634
(col. 4, lines 26-26).
Shubkin does not state that the fuel is low sulfur fuel.
However, the teaching that diesel fuel can be used would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, use of any
of the known diesel fuels, and the appellants acknowledge that
low sulfur diesel fuels were known in the art (specification,
page 1, line 11 - page 2, line 13).1 Moreover, Caprotti teaches
that the process of preparing low sulfur diesel fuel reduces the
ability of the fuel to lubricate the injection system of an
engine (page 1, line 28 - page 2, line 2). This teaching would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to add Shubkin’s
lubricity aid to a low sulfur diesel fuel to compensate for this
loss of lubricity.
Shubkin does not disclose that the fuel contains a dehazer.
However, the reference teaches that the fuel can contain any of
the conventional additives (col. 4, lines 29-30), and the
appellants acknowledge that dehazers were well known in the art
as demulsifiers for fuels (specification, page 7, lines 32-35).
1 It is axiomatic that our consideration of the prior art
must, of necessity, include consideration of the admitted prior
art. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256,
258 (CCPA 1962).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007