Appeal No. 96-2898
Application No. 08/340,998
page 3) that Gee’s esterified styrene-maleic anhydride
copolymers are identical to appellants’ claimed SMA copolymer
component is not disputed. Likewise, the examiner’s factual
finding (answer, page 3) that Bridger’s esterified maleic
anhydride-olefin copolymers are identical to appellants’
claimed OMA copolymer component is not challenged by
appellants.
Based on the combined teachings in the relied upon
references, the examiner argues, and we agree (particularly
when faced with the dual prior art problems encountered with
certain lubricating oils having visible wax particles and a
need for pour point improvement), that one of ordinary skill
in this art would have been led to have combined the copolymer
additives described in Gee and Bridger in a lubricant
composition based on a reasonable expectation of reducing the
lubricant pour point, improving the lubricant fluidity, and
reducing the low temperature micro-crystalline wax formation
in the lubricant.
Appellants’ fundamental argument on appeal is that the
evidence of record shows the performance of the claimed
composition “to be greater than that of the known performances
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007