Appeal No. 2000-2079
Application 08/883,634
the amounts of lubricity aid disclosed by Shubkin and Malec as
set forth above, it reasonably appears that the ratios of
lubricity aid to dehazer obtained when one of ordinary skill in
the art determined the amount of dehazer in the fuels of Shubkin
and Malec through routine experimentation would include ratios of
about 9 to about 20 as recited in the appellants’ claim 26.
The appellants state that none of the applied references
teach or suggest the lubricity aid to dehazer ratio recited in
the appellants’ claim 26 (brief, pages 13-14), but provide no
supporting explanation. Hence, we are not convinced that this
ratio would have been unobvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art.
Claims 2-5 and 8-13
The appellants’ claim 2 and claims 3-5 and 8-13 which depend
directly or indirectly therefrom require that the lubricity aid
is an alkanolamide of an aryl-substituted fatty acid, or a
combination of such alkanolamides. The examiner does not point
out where the applied prior art discloses such an alkanolamide,
or explain how the applied prior art would have fairly suggested
such an alkanolamide to one of ordinary skill in the art. The
examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of establishing a
prima facie case of obviousness of the invention recited in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007