Appeal 2006-3272
Application 09/789,149
Appellants’ invention is directed to an unleaded gasoline composition
and a method of blending an unleaded gasoline. Claim 1 is illustrative and
reproduced below:
1. An unleaded gasoline fuel suitable for combustion in a spark
ignition internal combustion engine and containing at least about 0.3 weight
percent to about 10 weight percent diisopropylbenzene and containing no
more than about 1 weight percent benzene.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Kaneko JP 2000-073074 Mar. 7, 2000
Claims 1, 4-8 and 11 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kaneko (JP 2000-073074).1
We affirm.
Separate arguments are presented for claims 1, 5, and 11. We select
claim 1 as the representative claim for the grouping of dependent claims 4
and 6-8 therewith, as claims 4 and 6-8 are not separately argued.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration. Graham v. John
Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467(1966).
“[A]nalysis [of whether the subject matter of a claim would have been
obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject
1 Our references to Kaneko are to the English language translation by FLS,
Inc., of record.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013