Appeal No. 2004-1939
Application 10/120,497
indeed, we fail to find any specific connection with any disclosed amount of sulfur in this
respect, as it is stated that the gasoline composites preferably contain “low” sulfur content, which
“is most preferred” to be less than 30 ppm, “most preferably less than 10 ppm” (e.g., page 12,
ll. 24-27). Furthermore, Jessup discloses that
[f]or gasoline fuels in which one desires that emissions of NOx be minimized or
reduced, the principal factor influencing such emissions is Reid Vapor pressure. NOx
emissions decease as the Reid Vapor Pressure is decreased . . . even more preferably
below 7.0 psi (0.48 atm). Of secondary importance with respect to NOx emissions are
the 10% D-86 Distillation Point and olefin content. [Col. 2, ll. 21-29; emphasis
supplied.]
We note here that the thus disclosed Reid vapor pressure corresponds to the Reid vapor pressure
range specified in appealed claims 1 and 26.
We also find no support in the record for appellants’ arguments that reduced NOx
emissions shown in Kaneko are connected to the presence of MTBE in the gasoline composite
thereof. Indeed, Kaneko discloses that a “serious problem is that MTBE tends to increase
nitrogen oxides (NOx) in exhaust gas” (col. 1, ll. 53-55; emphasis supplied), and further discloses
Reid vapor pressures (col. 2, ll. 57-60) falling within the ranges shown by Jessup, which
encompass the Reid vapor pressure range specified in appealed claims 1 and 26.
Thus, appellants’ unsupported arguments are of little persuasion. See In re Lindner,
457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972). Indeed, contrary to these and similar
arguments, we are of the opinion that the interest of a refiner in complying with such regulations
as the Phase 3 reformulated gasoline standards and in reducing the amount of sulfur for reasons
known in the art would have lead this person to low amounts of sulfur falling within the average
limit range for sulfur specified in the Phase 3 regulations. As we discussed above, Kaneko
discloses a preference for under 20 ppmw sulfur and illustrates gasoline composites with 2, 3 and
4 ppmw sulfur.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Jessup, Kaneko and the
Phase 3 reformulated gasoline standards with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and
argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007