Appeal 2006-3272
Application 09/789,149
that a gasoline stock can be formulated using aromatics blended with other
gasoline components including isopropylbenzene and diisopropylbenzene, as
indicated in the above-referred to portions of the disclosure of Kaneko. As
Appellants’ acknowledge, the ratio of these latter two components that can
be used in a gasoline stock formulation is taught by Kaneko to be inclusive
of values that would be embraced by the claimed range. For example, the
claimed range and Kaneko’s disclosed range overlap at a molar ratio of 1
(see, e.g., ¶¶ 0058 and 0061 of Kaneko).
As a final point, we note that greenhouse gas reduction based on using
fuel components having a lower carbon content per BTU value than a fuel
having a higher carbon content per BTU value is not unexpected. Thus, we
find no reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness determination based
on the arguments presented in the Briefs.
It follows that, on this record, we shall sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of the appealed claims.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4-8 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaneko (JP 2000-073074) is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
cam
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013