Appeal No. 1997-3770
Application No. 08/451,888
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the
examiner and agree with the examiner that the aforementioned rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) are well founded. Accordingly, we will sustain these rejections.
The Rejections under Section 103
As an initial matter, appellants request that the claims be considered separately. See
Brief, page 4. However, no separate argument is presented with respect to any of the
claims. Accordingly, we limit our consideration to claim 1, an independent composition
claim, as representative of the claimed subject matter. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) (1995).
Appellants argue that there is no prima facie case of obviousness as there is no
teaching, suggestion or incentive in the prior art to combine the references. See Brief,
page 5. We disagree.
We find that Le Suer discloses a lubricant composition having extreme pressure and
antiwear characteristics resulting from the presence of molybdenum containing organic
complexes. See Abstract, column 1, lines 28-30 and lines 48 to column 2, line 20. We
find that antiwear additives may be added to the lubricant including an organic polysulfide
and a metal thiophosphate as required by the claimed subject matter. See column 1, lines
55-63 and particularly, column 20, lines 39-58 which provides for the addition of benzyl
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007