Appeal No. 95-5126
Application No. 08/045,675
Appellants do not argue that the amount of the lubricant
or the ashless dispersant recited in claim 14 would not have
been suggested by the applied prior art. See also In re
Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990);
In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA
1980). Rather, appellants take the position that the Barber
reference teaches away from using dimethyl octadecyl
phosphonate (DMOP) or the like as the additional friction
reducing means for Barber’s gear lubricant composition. See
Brief, pages 15 and 16. In support of their position,
appellants refer to the examples at columns 7 and 8 of the
Barber reference. Id. We do not subscribe to appellants’
position.
As indicated by appellants, we recognize that the
examples show that blend 3 containing 0.32 % by weight of
dimethyl octadecyl phosphonate exhibits no reduction in noise
level over the whole aural range as compared to blend 1,
whereas blend 2 containing 0.5% by weight of a preferred
succinimide derivative friction modifier which corresponds to
the claimed 3-hydrocarbyl-2, 5-diketopyrrolidine shows the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007