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