Appeal No. 2000-2079
Application 08/883,634
argument is not convincing because the portion of the
specification relied upon by the appellants does not provide a
comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art.
See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
For the above reasons we conclude that the fuel composition
claimed in the appellants’ claims 1, 14, 16, 19 and 29 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the applied
prior art.
Claim 21
The appellants acknowledge that the dehazers recited in
their claim 21 were well known in the art (specification, page 7,
line 34 - page 8, line 7).2 Consequently, it would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use
them as the demulsifier in the fuels of Shubkin and Malec. For
this reason and because the appellants do not direct any argument
to claim 21, we conclude that the fuel composition recited in
this claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art over the applied prior art.
2
2 Zimmerman also indicates that acylated polyglycols were
known demulsifying agents (col. 6, lines 59-61).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007