Ex Parte Sherman et al - Page 8

                Appeal 2006-2994                                                                                  
                Application 09/753,495                                                                            
                distillation conditions and amounts of base or glycol would have been                             
                obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (Answer 5).                                           
                       Appellants argue that Chavet does not teach, show, or suggest                              
                distilling a mixture comprising used oil, base compound, and phase transfer                       
                catalyst (or glycol), as required by the claims (Br. 14).  Appellants direct us                   
                to Chavet '065 col. 4, lines 43-472 as evidence that Chavet’s water wash step                     
                removes all of the base compound.  The Examiner does not find this                                
                argument persuasive, maintaining that “at least traces of base must be                            
                present in the mixture that is distilled since it is unlikely that the washing                    
                step removes all of the base” (Answer 6).                                                         
                       As discussed above in connection with the first two grounds of                             
                rejection, the initial burden is on the Examiner to establish unpatentability.                    
                The Examiner has not demonstrated that the claimed invention and Chavet                           
                process are sufficiently similar such that Chavet’s mixture would necessarily                     
                or inherently contain used oil, base compound, and phase transfer catalyst                        
                (or glycol) during distillation.  Moreover, the Examiner fails to comment on                      
                those portions of Chavet which, as noted by Appellant, appear to teach the                        
                removal of all base compound.  See also Chavet ‘065, col. 4, ll. 65-67 and                        
                col. 6, ll. 30-34.                                                                                
                       The rejection of claims 25-28, 31, 32, 34-36, 41, and 42 as                                
                unpatentable over WO ‘928 is reversed.                                                            



                                                                                                                 
                2 “This water washing operation . . . is essential to remove (1) any alkaline                     
                reactant in excess, (2) the alcohol if used as a solvent and (3) all water                        
                soluble by-products resulting from the alkaline reacted contaminants.”                            
                                                        8                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013