Appeal No. 2003-0172
Application 09/810,801
unlike in Wernicke ‘520, hydrotreating the feedstock in their
examples would decrease the olefin yield.
For the above reasons we conclude that the appellants’
claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
OTHER ISSUE
In the event of further prosecution the examiner and the
appellants should address on the record whether the appellants’
claimed invention is anticipated by the Wernicke ‘520 comparative
example 1. In this example a gas oil having a hydrogen content
of 13.13 wt% is thermally cracked without a preceding
hydrotreating step. Wernicke ‘520 does not disclose the pentane
insoluble content of the feedstock. This feedstock, however,
boils in the 208-354ēC range, which is at the lower end of the
boiling range of the feedstock in the examples in the appellants’
specification. Also, this boiling range is below the boiling
range of feedstocks which, Wernicke ‘520 teaches, form pyrolysis
oil, coke and tar (col. 2, lines 41-44). In addition, the
Wernicke article (table 1) discloses a heavy vacuum gas oil which
has a boiling range generally higher than that in Wernicke ‘520
(340-540ēC versus 208-354ēC), but contains only 0.07 wt%
asphaltenes. Thus it reasonably appears that the gas oil in the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007