Appeal 2007-1395
Application 10/328,115
additives in hydrocarbon-based fuels, such as gasoline fuel (Specification 2-
3). Representative independent claim 1, as presented in the Brief, appears
below:
1. A method of reducing the particulate emissions in an internal
combustion engine, said method comprising operating the internal
combustion engine with a fuel composition comprising a major
amount of hydrocarbons boiling in the gasoline or diesel range and
an effective; particulate emissions- reducing amount of an alkylene
oxide-adducted hydrocarbyl amide wherein the hydrocarbyl amide
is a coconut oil fatty acid amide obtained by the reaction of
coconut oil fatty acid or ester and diethanolamine, and further
wherein the coconut oil fatty acid amide is adducted with 3 to 4
moles of propylene oxide.
The Examiner relies on the following references in rejecting the
appealed subject matter:
Boehmke US 4,297,107 Oct. 27, 1981
Lin US 6,312,481 B1 Nov. 6, 2001
Claims 1, 12, 13, and 16-19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b)
as anticipated by Boehmke; claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Boehmke in view of Lin; and claims 1 and
11-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lin.1
The anticipation rejection
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that a prior art reference
describes each and every limitation of a claimed invention with “sufficient
1 The Examiner indicated in the Answer that claim 11 was inadvertently
excluded from this rejection in the final office action (Answer 3). Appellant
did not file a responsive Brief objecting to the inclusion of claim 11 in this
rejection.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013