Appeal No. 96-2768
Application 08/118,377
dithiophosphate and 1% of an alkylated aminophenol prepared in accordance with appellant’s Example
4 resulted in significantly less cam and lifter wear when compared to a lubricant containing zinc
dithiophosphate, but without the aminophenol, we agree with the examiner that the showing is not
commensurate in scope with the claimed composition. Appellants* claims encompass a wide variety of
alkylated aminophenols and zinc dithiophosphate compounds and amounts of each of these compounds.
However, the comparison in Table I includes only one composition within the scope of claim 1. We find
no reasonable basis for concluding that the great number of compositions encompassed by appellant*s claim
1 would behave as a class in the same manner as the particular composition tested. See In re Lindner, 457
F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445-46, 169 USPQ 423,
426 (CCPA 1971).
As for the data presented in Tables II and III, appellant has not met her burden of explaining and
interpreting the results shown in these tables. We are unable to determine how to interpret the data for the
“Falex Torque,” “Four Ball Load Wear Index” and “Timken EP.” Even if the meaning of the results
presented by the data had been explained by appellant, we find that the compositions being compared,
Examples 11-14, are not within the scope of claim 1. Examples 7-14 do not set forth what molar amount
the alkyl groups in zinc dithiophosphate were derived from primary alcohols. Also, we do not know if the
composition contains a “minor portion” of zinc dithiophosphate as required by claim 1. The alkylated
aminophenol added in Examples 11-14 appears to be a particular alkylated aminophenol, but appellant has
not identified the specific compound. Even if it is the alkylated aminophenol prepared in Example 4, the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007