Appeal 2007-2486
Application 10/429,369
In the present appeal, Sorgenti and Gunnerman recognize that
removing thiophenes from fossil fuels is difficult to do using
hydrodesulfurization (Sorgenti, col. 1, ll. 33-40; Gunnerman, col. 2, ll. 63-
67, col. 3, ll. 1-5, col. 8, ll. 60-67). Gunnerman provides a solution to the art
recognized problem: using ultrasound, an oxidizing compound, and an
aqueous phase to remove thiophenes (Gunnerman, col. 8, ll. 60-67). Thus,
Gunnerman’s solution (i.e., ultrasonic removal of hard to remove
thiophenes) to the art recognized problem (i.e., thiophenes are difficult to
remove using hydrodesulfurization) provides motivation for combining
Sorgenti’s and Gunnerman’s processes in the manner claimed by Appellant.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Accordingly, we find that there is motivation for combining
Sorgenti’s and Gunnerman’s processes.
CLAIMS 1 AND 8
Appellant further argues that neither Sorgenti nor Gunnerman
discloses removing nitrogen containing compounds from fossil fuel using
ultrasound facilitated oxidation and, thereafter, subjecting the oxidized
compounds to hydrodesulfurization (Br. 8-10, 14-15). Regarding claim 8,
Appellant argues that Sorgenti and Gunnerman require addition of an
oxidizing agent, whereas claim 8 does not require the presence of an
oxidizing agent separate from the fuel (Br. 16-17).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Where the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has reason to believe
that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013