Ex parte BLOCH et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 97-3776                                                           
          Application No. 08/396,501                                                   


          result, the examiner has not met her initial burden of setting               
          forth a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed                      
          subject matter.  Also, the examiner's treatment of the                       
          Waddoups declaration at page 6 of the Answer is inadequate.                  
          The examiner provides no critical analysis of the declaration                
          in support of her conclusion that the declaration results are                
          "expected in the use of secondary zinc dihydrocarbyl                         
          dithiophosphates over primary zinc dihydrocarbyl                             
          dithiophosphates."  We note that the lubricant offered for                   
          comparison in the declaration, ECA 14751, comprises 34 mole                  
          percent sec-hydrocarbyl groups.                                              
               In conclusion, based on the present record, we are                      
          constrained to reverse the examiner's rejection.                             
                                       REVERSED                                        


                         EDWARD C. KIMLIN               )                              
                         Administrative Patent Judge    )                              
                                                        )                              
                                                        )                              
                                                        )                              
                                                        )                              
                         BRADLEY R. GARRIS              ) BOARD OF PATENT              
                         Administrative Patent Judge    )   APPEALS AND                
                                                        )  INTERFERENCES               
                                                        )                              
                                                        )                              
                                                        )                              
                                         -5-                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007