Appeal 2007-1395
Application 10/328,115
specificity” to establish anticipation. Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
The issue presented for review with respect to this rejection is: Does
the Boehmke reference have a disclosure that anticipates the claimed subject
matter? The issue turns on whether Boehmke describes a method for
operating an internal combustion engine comprising the employment of a
gasoline composition comprising a monoamide-containing polyether alcohol
compound. We answer this question in the affirmative.
The Examiner finds that Boehmke describes a gasoline fuel
composition comprising an alkylene oxide-adducted hydrocarbyl amide.
The Examiner finds that Boehmke teaches that the amide compound reduces
the amount of harmful substances in the exhaust and the amount of soot
(Answer 4-5). Boehmke discloses that the fuel composition comprises 40-
95% by weight of hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon mixtures (Boehmke, col. 1,
ll. 28-53). Boehmke discloses that harmful substances in the exhaust are
reduced when the fuel composition is used under appropriate conditions
(Boehmke, col. 4, ll. 53-58).
Appellant has not argued that the fuel additive comprising an
alkylene-oxide adducted hydrocarbyl amide described in Boehmke is
different from the fuel additive utilized in the claimed invention. Rather,
Appellant contends that Boehmke’s fuel composition is different from the
claimed invention because Boehmke’s fuel composition includes water (Br.
6). Specifically, Appellant contends “[s]ince no water is added to the fuel in
Appellant’s present invention, the teaching of Boehmke cannot anticipate
Appellant’s present invention because Boehmke teaches that a reduction in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013