Appeal No. 1998-1369
Application No. 08/622,620
stated “[t]he individual compositions [sic, components] of the
composition are notoriously well known lubricant additives.”
Answer, page 5. Appellants have not contested this statement.
Furthermore, appellants admit that many of these additives
were well known in the art (e.g., see the specification, page
47, ll. 18-23). Additionally, many specific additives such as
dispersants and EP agents are disclosed by the applied prior
art (see Michaelis, col. 4, l. 39-col. 6, l. 2; Eby, page 3,
right col., ll. 30-61; page 4, left col., ll. 42-54; Hill,
col. 2, ll. 12-17). Accordingly, the use of well known
additives for their attendant properties with the compositions
of the applied references would have been well within the
ordinary skill in the art. Each reference also discloses the
use of the additives in lubricating oils as claimed in claims
41 and 42, including various types of lube oils (e.g., see
Eby, page 4, right col., ll. 9-17). It was also well known in
the lubricating oil art to employ concentrates as recited in
claims 42-44 for economical purposes (i.e., to reduce shipping
charges).
With regard to claims 45-46, appellants argue that there
is no teaching or suggestion within Eby which would have led
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007