Appeal 2007-4193
Application 10/367,432
There is no dispute, and indeed, Appellants acknowledge, that Willis
would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art a composition of
ethylene carbonate-treated succinimides and borated succinimides, and that
Stuart would have disclosed to this person dispersed aromatic dicarboxylic
acid corrosion inhibitors prepared from succinimides salts and terephthalic
acid as claimed (Answer 3-5; Specification, e.g., 3:33, 6:8, and 7:10). With
respect to the claim limitation “polyisobutenyl succinic anhydride, having a
polyisobutenyl group with a number average molecular weight of about
1100-1500,” the Examiner finds “Stuart teaches that the R substituent on the
alkenyl succinic anhydride reactant is a hydrocarbon radical having . . .
preferably from about 50 to about 200 carbon atoms . . . [that] corresponds
to a molecular weight . . . preferably from about 800-3200,” which
encompasses the “claimed range for the number average molecular weight
for the polyisobutenyl group of 1100-1500” (Answer 6-7, citing Stuart,
col. 2, ll. 1-12). The Examiner finds Stuart’s disclosure is not limited to the
illustrative examples therein, including “a molecular weight of 1000 for the
polyisobutenyl substituent,” but would have fairly taught the range of 800 to
3200 to one of ordinary skill in the art (id. 7). The Examiner concludes that
it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to combine the
additives of Willis and that of Stuart to form a composition for lubricating
oils because Willis discloses that lubricating oils for the crankcase of an
internal combustion engine can contain additional additives to those
disclosed therein and Stuart discloses the dispersed corrosion inhibitors can
be used with various lubricant base oils (Answer 4-5, citing Willis, col. 5,
l. 65 to col. 7, l. 7 and Stuart, col. 4, ll. 8-32).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013