Appeal No. 95-2657
Application No. 07/980,637
The claims on appeal are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Inoue.
We refer to the brief and the reply brief and to the
answer for a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellant and the examiner concerning the
above noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejection.
The issue we consider pivotal to this appeal and the
examiner's position with respect thereto are expressed by the
examiner on page 4 of the answer as follows:
Appellants [sic] argue that the instant claims
are drawn to a method for lubricating an automatic
transmission which differs from the prior art which
does not mention such a use. This is not deemed to
be persuasive since the composition of the prior art
is taught as an engine oil suitable for use in
gasoline engines, diesel engines and the like.
Appellants [sic] method of use as an automatic
transmission fluid is not seen to be patentably
distinct over the engine oil composition of the
prior art.
We do not share the examiner's above noted position.
Even assuming the composition of Inoue corresponds to the
composition recited in the appealed claims, we find nothing in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007