Ex Parte PETER-HOBLYN et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-1882                                                        
          Application 09/756,383                                                      


          claim a method for feeding a gasoline composition containing                
          rhodium acetylacetonate and a fuel-soluble organoplatinum                   
          compound to an engine so as to renew or improve the performance             
          of a three-way catalytic converter operated on the engine.                  
          Claim 1, directed toward the composition, is illustrative:                  
               1.  A composition for adding to gasoline for the purpose of            
          maintaining or improving the performance of a three-way catalytic           
          converter, comprising a blend of rhodium acetylacetonate and a              
          fuel-soluble organo-platinum compound.                                      
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Bowers et al. (Bowers)             4,891,050        Jan.  2, 1990           
          Epperly et al. (Epperly)           5,034,020        Jul. 23, 1991           
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Bowers           
          and over Bowers in view of Epperly.                                         
                                       OPINION                                        
               We affirm the aforementioned rejections.                               
               The appellants state that the claims do not stand or fall              
          together (brief, page 4).  The appellants, however, do not                  
          provide a substantive argument as to why the claims are believed            
          to be separately patentable.  Accordingly, we limit our                     
          discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1.  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).                                                 
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007