(dissenting).
Assuming arguendo that the decrease in sensitivity factor is unexpected, I cannot agree with the legal conclusion reached by the majority opinion since it fails to adequately weigh all the evidence in the case. Finding a single unexpected result to be conclusive of non-obviousness without weighing contrary evidence is an approach opposite to that so recently taken by this court in In re Cline, 345 F.2d 847, 52 CCPA -, In re De Montmollin, 344 F.2d 976, 52 CCPA-, and In re Graf, 343 F.2d 774, 52 CCPA 1206.
Both the appellant and the majority agree that 1) the very ethers used in the composition are old, 2) that the base gasolines used are also old, 3) that the concept of the combination is old, i. e., the concept of combining those ethers with other gasolines is old, and 4) that it is entirely expected that the ethers raise both the Research and Motor Method octane numbers.
What the majority finds conclusive of non-obviousness is the relative unexpectedness of the drop in sensitivity factor, that the ether has raised the Motor Method octane number more than the Research Method number, or, the latter less than the former, over the base gasoline, although it is acknowledged to be expected to raise both. While the amount of the reduction in sensitivity *555factor, about 1.5 points,1 goes to whether it is unexpected or not, I do not think that that single factor set against the others above listed is of such significance as to be conclusive of non-obviousness.
The majority opinion in effect stands for the proposition that a single unexpected result is conclusive of non-obviousness, even where the concept of combining the components, i. e., the ether with an equivalent gasoline, is old, and one, if not two, of the resultant properties are acknowledged to be entirely expected. That approach of the majority opinion does not give due weight to each and every bit of evidence, contrary to what I understand to be the law. In re Cline, supra, In re Montmollin, supra, In re Graf, supra. Thus, upon weighing the total circumstances of this case, I am compelled to say that the rejections made were proper and should be affirmed.
But further, I do not agree that the unexpectedness of the reduction in sensitivity is as clear as the majority assumes it to be.
The sensitivity factor would be of some significance if the “rule,” “that the lower the sensitivity number, the better is the over-all performance of the gasoline composition,” were not extremely general. The statement would be more accurate if the two gasolines compared had the same research octane number. Since it .is common knowledge that the cars of today rarely operate at 600 RPM, most idling around or above that figure, the Motor Method octane number is the better index of all-around performance. Clearly if two gasolines have the same research octane number but one is less sensitive, that one will give superior over-all road performance since the Motor Method octane is higher.2 Yet the ethers used herein are acknowledged to raise the Motor Method octane number, as is entirely expected. Appellant states:
It is, of course, not suprising [sic] that the higher octane number ether raised both the Research and Motor Method octane numbers. * * *
The sensitivity factor, to me becomes more and more unreal as a truly significant factor, on which non-obviousness here is pegged.
The Evans et al. reference (not described in the majority opinion) is admitted by appellant to show the use of the claimed di-lower-alkyl ethers in gasoline. Evans et al. blend with a motor fuel:
* * * an agent which tends to reduce the knocking of the fuel in supercharged gasoline engines. [Emphasis mine.]
“Methyl tertiary butyl ether” is disclosed therein as such an agent; compare appellant’s claim 5. The ether amount in the Evans et al. blend varies from “5% to 50% * * Evans et al. state:
We have now found that certain blends of ethers with hydrocarbons, *556which blends possess octane numbers not substantially greater than those of the hydrocarbons alone prove vastly superior to the straight hydrocarbons in supercharged engines. * * *
******
As is known, supercharging is one method of markedly raising the power output of gasoline engines. This method comprises boosting the intake pressures to above atmospheric pressure, thus increasing the compression pressures. The degree of supercharging is limited by the knocking property of the fuel, for all fuels have a critical compression pressure above which they detonate spontaneously. Obviously the fuel which permits the highest degree of supercharging is the most desirable.
******
It will be seen that the addition of various quantities of our ethers, while failing to improve the octane rating, markedly increases the allowable boosting of the intake pressure without causing knocking. [Emphasis mine.]
Thus it is clear to me that Evans et al. teach that the addition of appellant’s ethers to a gasoline would be expected to reduce knocking under severe engine operating conditions (albeit conditions different than those of appellant’s). The Evans et al. base gasolines, ether, and blend all have about the same octane number (about 100) based on an “ASTM” method. Regardless of which ASTM method is used in determining the same octane numbers for base gasoline and blend, the fact that the Evans et al. blend (gasoline plus ether) then endures an increase in severity of engine conditions which causes the reference iso-octane fuel to knock, clearly indicates the fundamental result Evans et al. teach is the same as that here on which non-obviousness solely depends. That is, Evans et al. teach that under engine conditions which more nearly approximate the rigors of true performance the blend of gasoline plus ether will perform better in terms of its resistance to knocking. Compare that to the fundamental result appellant seeks:
* * * when testing two gasolines of different compositions in the same engine one may find that both gasolines have just adequate knock-resistance in the engine at low speeds and that as the speed of the engine is increased, resulting in higher combustion chamber temperatures, one of the fuels is still adequately knock-resistant while the other detonates or knocks. The term “sensitivity” is used to define this difference among gasoline fuels; in this example the second gasoline has a higher “sensitivity” than the first gasoline, i. e., it is more “sensitive” to a change in the engine operation toward conditions of greater stress on the fuel.
Both Evans et al. and appellant show the same fundamental result attained by the addition of the ether, and I see no magic in defining it in terms of sensitivity factor. Cf. In re Summerson, 345 F.2d 222, 52 CCPA -. Since I have not been shown that the board clearly erred in its weighing of all the facts, I would affirm.
. Mark’s Mechanical Engineers Handbook, 5th Edition (1951), p. 1216, indicates that:
The precision of rating motor fuels by either the research or the motor method is about X 0.4 O.N. [octane numbers]. Probability indicates once in ten times a single rating may be in error by 0.65 O.N. The precision of rating aviation fuels is such that once in ten times a single rating may be in error by 3 percent of the true performance number of the fuel when using the aviation method * * *.
Further, at page 1215, Mark’s states:
The Army-Navy performance number scale for aviation gasolines * * * [the method disclosed by appellant for determining the octane numbers of the ether] is designed to relate fuel rating to average knock-limited performance (imep). A gasoline of the 100/130 grade indicates that in the aviation test (lean mixture, normally-aspirated) the fuel is equivalent to iso-octane in imep while in the supercharge test (rich mixture) it permits an imep of 130 percent of that of iso-octane.
Appellant discloses that the method for determining the Research and Motor Octane numbers of the ether, and thus the sensitivity factor of the ether, is not the same as that for either the base gasoline or the blend.
. See the Morris reference of record.