Appeal No. 2006-1551
Application No. 10/015,863
time the invention was made to have modified the process of
Fletcher by utilizing the claimed fractions with the claimed
boiling ranges because any boiling range fractions will be
effectively treated as long as the heavier fraction is introduced
at the inlet of the reactor” (answer, page 4).
In support of his patentability position, the appellant
argues on page 2 of the reply brief that the here claimed
temperature ranges yield results not obtainable with the
temperature ranges of Fletcher (i.e., the temperature ranges
explicitly disclosed in figure 1 of the patent). It is, of
course, expected that different parameter conditions may yield
different results. However, this consequence relates to the
issue of claim 11 novelty which the examiner has conceded. On
the other hand, the appellant’s argument has questionable
relevance to the nonobviousness issue raised by the examiner’s
rejection.
Concerning this last mentioned issue, Fletcher clearly
teaches that the temperature ranges of figure 1 are merely
illustrative (e.g., see lines 36-41 in column 9). Indeed,
patentee expressly and repeatedly teaches that cut points between
his fractions will depend on the boiling range of the original
crack feed as well as the sulfur distribution in the feed (e.g.,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007