Appeal No. 1997-0494
Application 08/275,860
respectively. Thus, the wt % of the phenates used in the compositions of invention Examples 2 and 3
fall outside of the “usual” wt % range for this ingredient taught by Vernet while those of the compositions
of Comparative Examples 4 through 7 are within that range. We further note that while the lubricating
oil composition of Comparative Example 1 contains “low overbase calcium sulfonate,” as do all of the
tested compositions, unlike the other tested compositions, this composition does not contain a
“carbonated magnesium alkylsulfonate” (id., e.g., page 11, lines 19 and 29-30, and page 12 lines 4-5
and 11).4 Thus, the composition of Comparative Example 1 is not found in Vernet for the additional
reason that it does not contain an ingredient required by the reference. It would appear that the TBN of
the phenates and sulfonates employed in the tested compositions would fall within the teachings of
Vernet.
We have tabulated the reported average % viscosity increase due to soot loading along with the
reported % total base equivalents provided by the phenate and the wt % of the phenate with respect to
the sulfonate (see above) for the compared lubricating oil compositions. In addition, we have included
the reported rust inhibition ratings for invention Examples 2 and 3 and Comparative Examples 1 and 4
(id., pages 13-14) discussed by the examiner (answer, page 5).
Example average % Rust % total base wt %
viscosity increase rating equivalents – phenate phenate
(10 = clean)
Comparative Example 1 155 8.26 100 100
Invention Example 2 155 8.6 90 93.59
Invention Example 3 159 8.76 95 96.85
Comparative Example 6 162 75 83.11
Comparative Example 7 167 50 61.76
Comparative Example 5 168 80 86.73
Comparative Example 4 171 8.8 85 90.22
Appellants provide a graph (brief, page 7) in which the plotted points are based on % total base
1981) (“As long as one of the monomers in the reaction is propylene, any other monomer may be
present, because the term ‘comprises’ permits the inclusion of other steps, elements, or materials.”).
4 We find from the specification that a “carbonated magnesium alkylsulfonate” is a “carbonated metal
alkyl aryl sulfonate” as specified in claim 1 (id., e.g., page 3, lines 15-19).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007