Ex Parte BRIDGES et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-0172                                                        
          Application 09/810,801                                                      


                                    THE INVENTION                                     
               The appellants’ claimed invention is directed toward a                 
          thermal steam cracking process for producing olefins.  Claim 1 is           
          illustrative:                                                               
               1.   A process for producing olefins which consists of                 
          thermally team cracking a crude oil wherein;                                
               (A) the crude oil has pentane insolubles, ASTM D893, less              
          than or equal to 1.2; and                                                   
               (B) the weight percent hydrogen of the crude oil is greater            
          than 12.5.                                                                  
                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Wernicke et al. (Wernicke ‘520)      4,210,520      Jul.  1, 1980           
          Wernicke et al. (Wernicke ‘871)      4,257,871      Mar. 24, 1981           
          H.J. Wernicke and W. Kreuter, “Pretreat feed for more olefins”,             
          Hydrocarbon Processing 137-42 (Oct. 1979) (Wernicke article).               
                                    THE REJECTION                                     
               Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being              
          unpatentable over Wernicke ‘520 in view of Wernicke ‘871 and the            
          Wernicke article.                                                           
                                       OPINION                                        
               We affirm the aforementioned rejection.                                
               The appellants state that the claims stand or fall together            
          (brief, page 2).  We therefore limit our discussion to one claim,           


          i.e., claim 1.  See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37                


                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007