Appeal 2006-2094
Application 10/339,797
The Examiner relies upon the following reference in rejecting the appealed
subject matter:
Doyle US 5,276,238 Jan. 4, 1994
Claims 35 to 41 and 43 to 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Doyle. Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Doyle. (Answer 3-6).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner
and the Appellants regarding the above noted rejections, we make reference to the
Answer (mailed September 9, 2004) for the Examiner’s reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the Briefs (filed June 24, 2004 and November 12, 2004) for
Appellants’ arguments thereagainst. We affirm the Examiner’s rejections for
essentially the reasons set forth in the Answer. Our reasons follow.
Claims 35 to 41 and 43 to 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Doyle.1 The Examiner has found that Doyle describes compositions
comprising olefins having an average carbon number ranging from 5 to 20. The
Examiner asserts that 1-heptane and 1-pentene are two of the most predominant
liner alpha olefins contained in the compositions (Answer 3). The Examiner
asserts that the compositions described in Tables 1 and 2 anticipate the presently
claimed invention.
Appellants argue that “Tables 1 and 2 relied upon by the Examiner appear to
reflect olefin products that are found in reaction mixtures produced in Doyle’s
1Appellants have grouped the arguments for claims 35 to 41 together and claims 43
to 51 together. We select claim 35 and claim 43 as representative of the argued
claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007