Appeal No. 1997-1875
Application No. 08/451,378
per the 1994 declaration equals 1.12). Significantly, Table
II on specification page 16 reveals that the antiwear
properties for the inventive compound of Example number 4 are
superior to those for the inventive compound of Example number
8 by this same approximate amount of 12% (i.e., 0.104 divided
by 0.093 equals 1.12). In other words, the antiwear
properties of the here claimed compounds appear to vary in
comparison with one another to the same extent as in
comparison to the prior art compound tested in the Zinke
declarations.
This last mentioned circumstance supports the conclusion
that, while the antiwear properties of certain here claimed
compounds will be superior to those of the tested prior art
compound, the antiwear properties of other claimed compounds
will correspond to those of the prior art compound. That is,
the antiwear properties of these other claimed compounds will
be 12% inferior to certain claimed compounds as reflected by
specification Table II and thus will correspond to the
antiwear property of the tested prior art compound which is
shown by the Zinke declarations to be 12% inferior to the
tested inventive compounds. For this reason, it is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007