Appeal No. 2006-1551
Application No. 10/015,863
see lines 4-7 in column 11 and lines 38-41 in column 4).
Significantly, Fletcher additionally teaches that “lower cut
points will typically be necessary for lower product sulfur
specifications” (lines 41-43 in column 4). It is also
significant that Fletcher, like appellant, discloses practicing
his process with a full range naphtha feed (e.g., see lines 6-14
in column 4) in such a manner as to remove sulfur while at the
same time minimizing the saturation of olefins which contribute
to the octane of the final gasoline product (e.g., see the
paragraph bridging columns 7-9 and lines 14-32 in column 10). 2
In light of these teachings, we agree with the examiner that
an artisan would have found it obvious to develop workable
boiling temperature ranges for the three naphtha fractions
treated in Fletcher’s disclosed process which would correspond to
the ranges defined by claim 11 when providing this process with a
full range naphtha feed with the objective of lower product
sulfur specifications in accordance with patentee’s disclosure
(e.g., again see lines 6-14 and lines 38-43 in column 4).
2In contrast to our above noted finding that the inventions
of appellant and Fletcher share common objectives, the appellant
argues that his claimed invention “is the exact opposite of what
Fletcher does” (brief, page 5; emphasis deleted). This argument
is without perceptible merit as explained by the examiner in the
answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007