Appeal 2007-4234
Application 10/929,891
where the method is performed or at what temperature or how long the wax
must minimally remain dispersed in the diluent or type of diluent. The
Examiner found that Ohkura teaches the same method steps using
substantially the same reagents (FF 32).
As discussed in the "Background" section of Appellant's specification,
it is known in the art that a large amount of heavy material separates and
precipitates from crude oil when it is being transported (FF 1), the majority
of which comprises high molecular weight paraffin waxes (FF 2), and that
the amount of wax and "slop oil" varies with the source and type of crude
oil, as well as the conditions under which it is being transported (FFs 3-4).
The specification expressly defines "slop oil" as a mixture of wax, oil, sand
and water (FF 4). Ohkura teaches treating a petrochemical mixture, i.e., any
type of highly viscous oil, e.g., crude oil that has spilled into an ocean as
result of an oil tanker accident, with a specific chemical dispersant (FFs 23,
28 and 29). Ohkura's dispersant comprises a surface active agent having the
same or substantially the same HLB as used by Appellant in his dispersant
(compare FFs 10-12 to FFs 23-24). According to Appellant's specification,
the diluent into which the amorphous wax is dispersed includes diesel,
kerosene, crude oil tank bottoms and water (FFs 19-20). Ohkura's dispersant
further comprises a hydrocarbon solvent, e.g., a paraffin type solvent or
kerosene (FF 26). Thus, we find that claim 1 is prima facie anticipated by
Ohkura. Appellant has not introduced evidence to the record sufficient to
establish the contrary.
First, we decline to read "slop oil" as narrowly argued by Appellant
(see FF 35). The proffered definition is inconsistent with the definition of
the term set forth in the specification, which expressly defines slop oil as a
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013