Appeal No. 95-2950
Application No. 07/855,127
Biresaw and Laemmle references in such a manner as to supply
the aforenoted deficiencies and thereby obtain the method and
cutting fluid claimed by the appellants. Similarly, the
examiner has advanced no rational proposal for somehow
modifying the subject matter of Oasterhout (which concerns an
alkenyl succinic acid that concededly corresponds to certain
of the appellants' succinic acids but that is for use as an
anti-corrosive for mineral lubricating oil) in such a manner
as to result in the here claimed method and cutting fluid. As
for Rawlinson, the examiner states that “Rawlinson teaches use
of branched C to C olefin, particularly polyisobutene3 5
sulphonate and polyisobutene succinimide as emulsifier in
aqueous cutting fluid having resistant [sic] to breakdown by
micro-organisms” (Answer, page 4) and concludes that “it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute the secondary references ester succinate for the
primary reference bioresistant surfactant because they are
derivatives of succinic acid or anhydrides and are used for
the same or similar functions in metalworking fluids rendering
the claims prima facie obvious” (Answer, page 5). However, we
find nothing and the examiner points to nothing in the applied
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007