Appeal 2007-2485
Application 10/142,750
(Lin 28, ll. 12-17). The amide moiety of the compound may be derived from
coconut diethanolamide (Lin 26, l. 2). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes
that Lin teaches all the limitations of the claims and, therefore, anticipates
the claims.
Appellants have not argued that the fuel additive comprising an
alkylene-oxide adducted hydrocarbyl amide described in Lin is different
from the fuel additive utilized in the claimed invention.
Rather, Appellants contend that Lin does not teach or suggest that any
improvement in acceleration performance would have been expected from
utilizing the described fuel additive (Br. 5). Appellants contend that Lin’s
disclosure relating to a gasoline additive that reduces intake valve deposits,
controls octane requirements increases and reduces octane requirements
would not necessarily correlate to an improvement in acceleration
performance (Br. 6). Appellants contend that acceleration in the present
invention refers to a decrease in acceleration time once the vehicle is in
motion. Lin’s discussion of acceleration is not the same as the claimed
invention (Br. 6). Specifically Appellants state:
Lin et al. discloses ‘deposits on the intake valves results in
overall poor drivability, including stumbles during
acceleration’. However, stumbling of a vehicle typically
occurs upon acceleration from a standing stop. Acceleration in
the present invention refers to a decrease in acceleration time
once a vehicle is in motion, e.g. traveling speed. Furthermore,
while characteristics of ‘drivability, including stumbles’ may be
indicative of improvements in the smoothness or general
operability of the vehicle, such characteristics do not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013