Appeal No. 2002-1933
Application 09/331,417
page 1, lines 10-30).
The appellants argue that the processes of Kelly and GB ‘657
do not react a raw C5 fraction but, rather, require purified
monoolefin feeds (brief, pages 8 and 10; reply brief, pages 4-6).
This argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above, the
appellants’ claim 15 does not exclude a process in which the
hydrocarbon mixture is a mixture of cyclopentene and acyclic
monoolefins which have been isolated from a C5 fraction.
Accordingly, we conclude that the process claimed in the
appellants’ claim 15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 15-19, 22-24
and 26-28 over Kelly in view of the appellants’ admitted prior
art, and claims 15-23 and 25-28 over GB ‘657 in view of the
appellants’ admitted prior art, are affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007