Appeal 2006-2269 Application 10/051,938 2. Claims 38-40, 43, 52, 54-56, 59, 67-70, 73, 77-78 and 81-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Duncan in view of Funkhouser.1 Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellant and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the Brief and Reply Brief, and to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition thereof. The claims were not argued separately. Accordingly we choose claims 38 and 46 as the representative claims on which it render our decision. OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER DUNCAN IN VIEW OF FUNKHOUSER The Examiner rejected claims 38-40, 43, 52, 54-56, 59, 67-70, 73, 77-78 and 81-84 under § 103(a) over Duncan in view of Funkhouser. The Examiner stated that Duncan discloses biodegradable lubricants including the use of these lubricants as hydraulic fluids (Answer 3). Referring to Duncan’s Table 8, the Examiner found that the disclosure of “TPE/C810/Ck8” includes pentaerythitol (a polyol) with a carboxylic acid (C810) having a mixture of linear C6 and C8 acids, and a biodegradability of at least 80% (Answer 3-4). However, the Examiner noted that Duncan fails to disclose the claimed shock absorber structure. The Examiner found that 1 There appears to be an inconsistency between the rejection of at least claim 40, which recites that the hindered polyol is trimethylolpropane, and the allowance of claim 53 which appears to be identical to claim 40. See our REMAND section for a more detailed discussion of the conflict. 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013