Appeal No. 2001-2525 Page 4
Application No. 09/000,579
[i]t would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to have modified the process of Eisenlohr by
having the first and second fractions have the same
composition because the fractions have overlapping
content (i.e., C8 aromatics) which indicates that the
process would still be effective if the compositions
were the same. Additionally it would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified the process of
Eisenlohr by eliminating the fractionation thereby
resulting in the first and second fractions having the
same composition because the reason for the
fractionation is that a reduced amount of solvent is
required.
The examiner explains that “if the use of higher amounts of
solvent can be tolerated, one would expect the process to
function without the initial fractionation step.” (answer, page
4).
Here, the examiner has not identified a reasonable
motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of
modifying the process of Eisenlohr so as to arrive at the
appellants’ claimed invention. As explained by appellants
(brief, page 5):
The use of the splitter at the front end of the
Eisenlohr process is not a mere circumstance. Rather,
it is the heart of the Eisenlohr teaching (see col. 1,
lines 38-67). Eisenlohr desires to separate out the
C8, C9 and C10 aromatics ahead of the liquid-liquid
extraction stage to obtain superior results by way of
increased yields and not merely in order to use a
minimum of solvent (col. 1, lines 38-49).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007