Appeal No. 2006-2030
Application No. 10/101,020
find no basis for appellants’ contention. In this regard,
we note that a hydrogenated vegetable oil may be completely
saturated and, thus, is not synonymous with PHVO.
Also, the fact that Thompson only reported on a
hydrogenated saturated vegetable oil (Appendix A), and a
NHVO (Appendix B), is not dispositive since a reference
disclosure is not limited to its working examples.
All of the foregoing notwithstanding, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case for the
following reason:
All of the appealed claims require that the PHVO in
the claimed fuel composition have an IV within a particular
range, e.g. claim 1 recites that range as being between
about 50 and 120. Appellants’ specification (page 4)
indicates that IV is a result-effective variable in terms
of the ability of the PHVO to stay in suspension and
thereby minimize fouling problems.
On the other hand, Thompson makes no mention of IV
values. According to the examiner (Answer: p. 3), it would
be expected that the PHVO of Thompson would have an IV
value within the claimed range. We find no factual basis
for this assertion considering that Thompson does not
disclose any specific PHVO, and the examiner has provided
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007