Appeal No. 1998-1369
Application No. 08/622,620
one of ordinary skill in the art to expect the mercaptan
additive would have the beneficial property of controlling
seal degradation (Brief, page 8). This argument is not
persuasive for reasons noted by the examiner on page 6 of the
Answer, namely that the lubricant composition envisioned by
Eby would have been used in an engine environment where it
would have necessarily contacted elastomeric seals.
Accordingly, the steps of combining a mercaptan with a
lubricating fluid and contacting the seal with the lubricant
composition as recited in claims 45-46 would have been
suggested by Eby to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of appellants’ invention.
Appellants argue that Eby does not teach the specific
organic polysulfide, the specific TBN, or the specific amounts
of the components in claim 50 (id.). This argument is not
persuasive since, as previously discussed, the organic
polysulfides and amines recited as component (A) of claim 50
were well known in the art as lubricant additives, and the
amount of each additive would have been a result-effective
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007