Appeal No. 2005-0766
Application No. 09/877,277
position that the here claimed reactions under consideration
would inherently occur in the processes of the applied
references. Even disregarding this temperature issue, the
examiner’s inherency position still would be well taken. This is
because the light naphtha produced in this upper zone is the same
in the prior art processes as in the here claimed process. In
this regard, it is appropriate to reiterate that we can think of
no mechanism and the appellant suggests none in which the same
feedstock ingredients in this upper zone would yield the same
light naphtha product without involving the same reactions in the
processes of the appellant and the applied references.
For the reasons set forth above and in the answer, the
examiner’s inherency position is reasonably supported by facts
and technical rationale. See Ex Parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461,
1463-64 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1990). It is our determination,
therefore, that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of anticipation which the appellant has failed to successfully
rebut with argument or evidence to the contrary. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). It follows that we hereby sustain the examiner’s Section
102 rejections of claims 1 and 5-7 as being anticipated by either
Podrebarac or Gildert.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007