Appeal 2007-4234
Application 10/929,891
crystalline paraffin wax. See, page 4, lines 11-16; page 5, lines 8-13;
page 5, line 15 through page 6, line 7 and; page 8, lines 1-6" (Answer
at 5).
[34] Appellant argues that dealing with slop oil does not mean that Ohkura
is dealing with crystalline paraffin wax because not all slop oil
contains crystalline paraffin wax (Br. at 4).
[35] Moreover, Appellant contends that "slop oil" should be narrowly
construed as "residual waste oil remaining from emulsion breaker-
dehydration treatment of heavy and light crude oils [sic, in] a
production or pipeline terminals [sic]" (Reply Br.6 at 2).
[36] According to Appellant, Ohkura and the present claims were invented
for two different, mutually exclusive purposes (Reply Br. at 3).
[37] Appellant further argues that
[w]hile the agent disclosed in the present patent
application also works as a degreaser and can
disperse slop oil in water like any other nonionic
surfactant (such as the one used in the Japanese
patent document), the method disclosed in the
Japanese patent document will not convert
crystalline paraffin wax to amorphous wax, and
thus the Japanese patent document does not
anticipate these claims (Br. at 4).
[38] Appellant still further argues that a plasticizer is required to practice
the invention of claim 1 in the conditions mentioned in Ohkura
because plasticizers are needed to convert crystalline wax to an
amorphous wax in the absence of heat (Reply Br. at 1-2).
6 Reply Brief filed 13 May 2007 ("Reply Br.").
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013