Appeal No. 97-0455
Application No. 08/344,043
oils described above) can also be used in the compositions of this invention.
Natural oil fractions such as bright stocks (the relatively viscous products formed
during conventional lubricating oil manufacture from petroleum) can also be used
for this purpose. They are usually present in the two-cycle oil in the amount of
about 3 to about 20% of the total oil composition.
Davis ‘138, 17:67 - 18:28. Davis ‘138 also teaches that
Polymeric VI [(Viscosity Index)] improvers have been and are being used as
bright stock replacement in the hope of improving lubricant film strength and
lubrication and improving engine cleanliness. [Bracketed material added.]
Davis ‘138, 17:45-48. Davis ‘757 gives an example of a lubricant which does not include bright stocks
but uses an acrylate viscosity index improver. Davis ‘757, Example B, 23:8-23. In our view, the person
of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized from the Davis patents that bright stocks are optional
ingredients in the Davis lubricants. As noted by applicant “[a] feature which is optionally present may also
be optionally absent.” Response to Request for Additional Information (Paper 16), p.4.
Applicant argues that Davis ‘138
discloses 2-cycle lubricants. Those materials, however, are disclosed to contain
8 - 12 percent (e.g., 9.4%, col. 19, line 6 ) of the conventional bright stock. Bright
stock in such amounts is excluded from the compositions of the present invention.
There is no teaching in the Davis references that any such compositional limitations
are desirable.
Appeal Brief ( Paper 11), p. 4.
Davis ‘757 and '138 each disclose a lubricant composition in which bright stock may or may not
be present. We also note that the lubricant described in Example B of Davis ‘757 does not include bright
stock. A reference is good for all it teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art, In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260,
1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and is not limited to the particular invention described
and to be protected by the patent, EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907, 225 USPQ
20, 25, (Fed. Cir.1985), the specific examples disclosed, In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215
USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA
1976), or preferred embodiments. In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA 1972).
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007