Appeal No. 1998-1664
Application No. 08/323,982
We reverse rejections I and II under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
With respect to rejections III and IV above, we remand for
further proceedings not inconsistent with our opinion below.
Rejections I and II
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either
explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); accord Glaxo Inc.
v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047, 34 USPQ2d 1565, 1567
(Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, we determine that the relied upon
prior art references do not disclose every limitation of the
claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.
According to the examiner, “the relied on subject matter
of the disclosure of Blystone and Adams are substantially the
same.” (Examiner’s answer, page 5.) Specifically, the
examiner states:
Adams et al, U.S. Patent 5,281,346, disclose
lubricant compositions comprising the instantly
claimed metal salts of formula (II) (column 2, line
17 to
column 3, line 15). The salts may contain an excess
of metal, i.e. overbased salts (column 13, lines 32-
39) . . .
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007