Appeal 2007-2486
Application 10/429,369
Sorgenti discloses using hydrodesulfurization to remove sulfur from
hydrocarbon materials such as petroleum products (Sorgenti, col. 1, ll. 4-12).
Sorgenti discloses that it is known in the sulfur removal art that it is difficult
to remove hetero-atomic sulfur compounds such as thiophenes using
hydrodesulfurization (Sorgenti, col. 1, ll. 27-50).
Gunnerman discloses adding an oxidizing agent and water to fossil
fuel to form a mixture, and treating the mixture with ultrasound to remove
sulfur compounds (Gunnerman, col. 2, ll. 27-35). Gunnerman further
discloses that hydrodesulfurization has limitations in the types of organic
sulfur compounds that may be removed (Gunnerman, col. 2, ll. 1-2).
Specifically, Gunnerman discloses that thiophenes and aromatic sulfur
compounds are difficult to remove (Gunnerman, col. 2, ll. 6-10). Gunnerman
further discloses that using ultrasound removes thiophenes (Gunnerman, col.
2, ll. 63-67, col. 3, ll. 1-5, col. 8, ll. 60-67).
From the above disclosures, it would have been obvious to combine
Gunnerman’s ultrasonic sulfur removal process with Sorgenti’s
hydrodesulfurization process to remove the difficult to remove aromatic and
thiophene compounds from the fossil fuel as disclosed by Gunnerman.
Thus, the prior art provides motivation (i.e., removal of difficult to remove
thiophenes and aromatic compounds) for the combination of Sorgenti’s and
Gunnerman’s processes. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d
1453, 1457-458 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
We add that any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at
the time of invention and addressed by a patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Inc. v. Teleflex
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013