Appeal 2006-3272
Application 09/789,149
Claim 5
Appellants further contend that Kaneko does not teach or suggest that
the gasoline composition is substantially free of olefins as required by
dependent claim 5. This argument is not persuasive because Kaneko does
disclose that the olefin content of the gasoline can range from zero to 32
percent by volume (Kaneko, Cl. 1, ¶ 0004). Clearly, one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention would have recognized a teaching or
suggestion to employ substantially no olefins in a gasoline composition as a
workable alternative from the disclosure of Kaneko. In this regard, we note
that the teachings of Kaneko are not limited to the preferred embodiments
thereof.
Claim 11
Claim 11 requires a method for forming a blended gasoline with an
aromatic stock component having an isopropylbenzene to
diisopropylbenzene molar ratio of about 1 to 6.
Appellants seemingly acknowledge that Kaneko’s teaches a method
for the formulation of gasoline (including aromatics) having both
isopropylbenzene and diisopropylbenzene components therein with a molar
ratio thereof including about 1 or higher; that is, a method that embraces
formulating a blend as claimed (Br. 5, Kaneko, ¶¶ 0004, 0010-0012, 0056-
0061, 0119, and 0120). The thrust of the arguments against the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 11 over Kaneko appears to be that Appellants
consider the disclosure of Kaneko to be too broad to be suggestive of the
claimed method of formulating a gasoline with the specified ratio of
isopropylbenzene to diisopropylbenzene in the gasoline stock used (Br. 4-5;
Reply Br. 2). However, one of ordinary skill in the art is taught by Kaneko
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013