Appeal No. 96-2888
Application No. 08/222,495
We refer to the Brief and to the Answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and the examiner concerning the above noted rejection.
OPINION
We will sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection of the
appealed claims.
The only argued distinctions of the appealed claims over the
applied references are set forth in the following argument
expressed by the appellants on page 4 of the Brief:
The Applicants respectfully submit that the
following limitations in the rejected claims are
missing from the cited references and render the
claimed subject matter unobvious over those cited
references:
(1) the zinc dialkyldithiophosphate used with the
thiocarbamate antiwear agent must be a secondary zinc
dialkyldithiophosphate, and
(2) all the phosphorous content is attributable
to the phosphorous content of the zinc dialkyldi-
thiophosphate.
In our view, these distinctions do not forestall a
conclusion of prima facie obviousness. The applied references in
general and Holubec in particular disclose lubricating oil
compositions such as compositions for internal combustion engines
which comprise ingredients that encompass those here claimed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007