Appeal No. 2006-3273 Page 2
Application No. 09/858,188
d) a 90% D-86 distillation point of less than about 360°F,
e) an olefins content of greater than about 15%,
f) a Reid Vapor Pressure of less than 7.5; and
at least one oxygenate.
The examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Townsend et al. H1305 May 3, 1994
GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Townsend.
We reverse.
DISCUSSION
Obviousness:
“In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. Only if that burden is
met, does the burden of going forward with evidence or argument shift to the
applicant.” In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993). The test of obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken
as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention.” In re Gorman,
933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3), Townsend teach a number
of reformulated gasoline variations comprising:
• sulfur content not exceeding 100 parts per million by weight,
• an octane rating of from about 86-94,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007