Appeal 2007-1943
Application 10/443,649
Comparative Facts
Method Claim 1 includes the process step of “hydrotreating a supply
of petroleum feedstock of relatively high sulfur fractions derived from crude
oil having an initial sulfur content of about 1 wt% or greater” in accordance
with method Claim 1 (Br. App., Claim 1). Product-by-process Claim 11
recites the process step of “severely hydrotreating a supply petroleum
feedstock of relatively high sulfur content fractions derived from crude oil
having an initial sulfur content of about 2 wt% or greater” (Br. App., Claim
11). Both the hydrotreating step of Claim 1 and the severe hydrotreating
step of Claim 11 must produce “low PAH, low sulfur petroleum pitch
feedstock having a sulfur content less than 1 wt% and less than 15,000
mg/kg of PAH” (Br. App. Claims 1 & 11).
We proceed to list the particulars of the hydrotreating and severe
hydrotreating steps for the processes described in Appellants’ Specification
for comparison to the particulars of the hydrotreating step of Didchenko’s
process in the following table.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013