Appeal No. 95-5126
Application No. 08/045,675
The examiner relies upon the following prior art
references as the evidence of obviousness:
Papay 4,158,633 June 19,
1979
Barber et al. (Barber) 5,126,064 June 30,
1992
Smalheer et al. (Smalheer), Lubricant Additives, The Lezius-
Hill Co., pages 1-11, 1967.
REJECTION
Claims 1 through 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Barber, Papay
and Smalheer.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and appellants
in support of their respective positions. This review leads
us to conclude that only the rejection of claims 14 through 21
is
well-founded. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 14 through 21, but reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 through 13, 22 and 23. Our
reasons for this determination follow.
CLAIMS 14 THROUGH 21
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007