Appeal No. 2004-2019
Application No. 10/301,441 Page 9
process stream “mainly of MTBE”, reducing the content of
oxygenated impurities and using a solid contact material
consisting essentially of a solid large pore zeolite.5 Id.
Having considered those arguments, I am not persuaded that
the examiner has committed any reversible error in his or her
decision. I will address the appellants’ arguments in seriatim.
First, as indicated supra, the claimed MTBE process stream
contains components other than MTBE and impurities. As such, the
claim language “mainly” does not require that greater than 50%
MTBE be present in the claimed MTBE process stream as implied by
the appellants’ argument and the majority’s opinion. It only
requires that MTBE be the principal or most important component
compared to other components in the MTBE process stream. Thus, I
concur with th the examiner that the term “mainly of MTBE,” as
broadly interpreted, includes the feed stream containing 42.8%
MTBE exemplified in Table VI at columns 9 and 10 of Knifton. As
is apparent from Table IV, MTBE is the principal component
compared to any other individual components in Knifton’s feed
5 I will limit my discussion to the appellants’ arguments.
See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d
1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991)(“It is not the function of this court
to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior
art.”).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007