Appeal No. 2001-2094
Application 09/203,894
The examiner argues that “[g]iven the proven
interchangeability of 1,2-dihydroquinolines for the
tetrahydroquinolines as related by Rasberger and the use of
members of the latter genus synergistically with aromatic amines
as related by Jones et al, it would be prima facie obvious to
expect the 1,2-dihydroquinoline genus to manifest the same type
of improvement by incorporating as well diaryl amines” (office
action mailed March 29, 2000, paper no. 3, pages 2-3).
Rasberger, however, does not indicate that 1,2-dihydroquinolines
and tetrahydroquinolines are interchangeable. Nor does Rasberger
teach that aromatic amines are alternatives to phenols in
promoting the effectiveness of both dihydroquinolines and
tetrahydroquinolines as argued by the examiner (answer, pages 4-
5). Rasberger teaches that the prior art 1,2-dihydroquinolines
were known to be useful, in combination with phenolic
antioxidants, as lubricant additives (col. 1, lines 22-29). It
is only 1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinolines that Rasberger teaches can
be used with aromatic amine oxidants (col. 1, lines 35-39;
col. 4, lines 55-68).
The record, therefore, indicates that the motivation relied
upon by the examiner for substituting 1,2-dihydroquinolines for
Jones’ tetrahydroquinolines comes from the appellants’ disclosure
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007