Appeal No. 95-3070
Application 07/907,078
failing to particularly pointing out and distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regard as their
invention.
Opinion
We have carefully considered the entire record in light of the respective positions advanced by
appellants and by the examiner. For the reasons set forth below, we will not sustain any of the examiner’s
rejections.
ANTICIPATION BY DEROSA
The examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
DeRosa who discloses an antiwear, antioxidancy dispersant, lubricant additive compound comprising a
backbone polymer onto which is grafted a glycidyl methacrylate having a pendent epoxide onto which an
antioxidant such as a phenothiazine, diarylamine or a substituted phenol is added. It is the examiner’s
position that claim 1 of DeRosa discloses a grafted backbone polymer containing both phenothiazine and
arylamine functional groups. We do not find that the record of the DeRosa patented file supports the
examiner’s position.
The pertinent portions of claim 1 in the DeRosa patent read as follows (the language added after
the first action on the merits is underlined):
1. An antiwear, antioxidancy dispersant, lubricant additive composition prepared
by the steps comprising:
(a) reacting a polymer prepared from ethylene and at least one (C -C ) alpha-
3 10
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007