Ex Parte Landschof et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2012

11609742 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/609,742 12/12/2006 Jorg LANDSCHOF TH2850 (US) 1611
23632 7590 05/29/2012
SHELL OIL COMPANY
P O BOX 2463
HOUSTON, TX 772522463
EXAMINER
HINES, LATOSHA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1775
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JORG LANDSCHOF, MICHAEL CLIFFORD
MACKNAY, and TIMOTHY MICHAEL SHEA
________________

Appeal 2011-002232
Application 11/609,742
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-22, 28-46 and 48-57, which are all of the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim an unleaded fuel composition. Claim 1 is
illustrative:

Appeal 2011-002232
Application 11/609,742

2
1. An unleaded fuel composition comprising:

a combination of alkylated benzenes comprising alkyl groups having
from 1 to 4 carbon atoms;

5 vol.% or more of one or more aromatic amines; and,

an isoparaffin composition selected from the group consisting of
alkylate, a combination of isoparaffins having a total number of carbon
atoms of 11 or less, and combinations thereof.

The References
Gaughan US 5,470,358 Nov. 28, 1995
Bazzani US 2002/0045785 A1 Apr. 18, 2002
The Rejection
Claims 1-22, 28-46 and 48-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Gaughan in view of Bazzani.1
OPINION
We affirm the rejection.
The Appellants argue the claims in the following groups: 1) claims 1,
6-12, 14, 15, 22, 28, 30, 31, 35-41 and 43-45, 2) claims 2, 3, 32 and 33,
3) claims 4, 5 and 34, 4) claims 13, 29, 42 and 52-57, 5) claims 16 and 17,
6) claims 18 and 19, 7) claim 20, 8) claim 21, 9) claims 46, 48 and 49,
10) claims 50 and 51. We therefore limit our discussion to one claim in each
group, i.e., claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 46, and 50. The other claims in
each group stand or fall with the claim we address. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007).

1 A provisional rejection of claims 1-22, 28-46 and 48-57 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-15 of
application no. 12/180845 is withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3).
Appeal 2011-002232
Application 11/609,742

3
Claims 1, 16, 18, 20, 21, 46 and 50
The Appellants argue that the applied references would not have
suggested the use of both an isoparaffin composition and a combination of
alkylated benzenes (Br. 10).2
Gaughan discloses aviation gasoline (avgas) containing a combination
of an isoparaffin composition (isopentane and alkylate) and an alkylated
benzene (toluene) (col. 3, l. 36). Bazzani teaches that compositions suitable
for avgas can contain alkylated aromatic compounds such as toluene and
xylene in combination (¶0034). Hence, it would have been prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a combination of alkylated
aromatic compounds in Gaughan’s avgas.
The Appellants argue that Bazzani’s disclosure that aromatic amines
may be present, if at all, in an amount of less than 5 vol% (¶ 0050) is a
teaching away from using 5 vol% or more (Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2).
Gaughan discloses that aniline (phenylamine) in amounts of 3, 6 and
9 wt% increases the motor octane number (MON) by, respectively, 2.7, 3.0
and 5.0 units (col. 3, l. 46). Gaughan, therefore, would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art, through no more than ordinary creativity, to use
aniline in amounts including 5 vol% or more to increase the MON. See KSR
Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (In making an
obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
The Appellants argue regarding claims 16, 18, 20 and 21 that it was
not predictable that the compositions in those claims could exhibit the

2 The Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the alkylated
benzene percentages in claims 16, 18, 20, 21, 46 and 50 (Br. 15-19).
Appeal 2011-002232
Application 11/609,742

4
Appellants’ exemplified octane numbers (Br. 15). That argument is not well
taken because those octane numbers are not required by the claims. See In
re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982).
Claims 2 and 4
The Appellants argue that the applied references would not have
suggested octane numbers as high as 105 or 110 required, respectively, by
the Appellants’ claims 2 and 4 (Br. 11-13).
Gaughan discloses that as the amount of aniline is increased in
increments of 3 wt%, i.e., from 0 to 3 to 6 to 9 wt%, the MON becomes
higher at an increasing rate, i.e., 2.7 then 3.0 then 5.0 (col. 3, l. 46).
Gaughan, therefore, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art, through
no more than ordinary creativity, to increase the amount of aniline to above
9 wt% to obtain MONs such as 110 which are higher than the 101.3 obtained
using 9 wt% aniline. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Claim 13
The Appellants argue that at least for motor gasoline, Gaughan
arguably teaches away from selecting an unsubstituted aromatic amine
(Br. 14-15).
Gaughan’s disclosure that aniline increases the MON of avgas
(Example 1) would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to add aniline,
which is an unsubstituted aromatic amine, to avgas.
For the above reasons we are not persuaded of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-22, 28-46 and 48-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Gaughan in view of Bazzani is affirmed.
Appeal 2011-002232
Application 11/609,742

5
It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED

tc