Appeal No. 2000-0994
Application 09/097,123
component (A) being present in an amount of 50 to 80 parts by weight and compound (B)
being present in an amount of 20 to 50 parts, by weight, per 100 parts by weight of the combined
weights of (A) and (B).
The appealed claims, as represented by claim 1, are drawn to a dielectric lubricant
composition comprising at least a phenyl-methyl siloxane having the average general formula
and viscosity specified in the claim, and a polytetrafluoroethylene powdered solid, the two
specified components being present in the specified amounts. Claim 8 specifies a silicone rubber
spark plug boot having a dielectric lubricant disposed in the boot cavity, wherein the dielectric
lubricant is defined in the same manner as in claim 1. Claim 9 specifies a method of lubricating
a spark plug boot by disposing on the walls of the cavity thereof a lubricant comprising the stated
parts of a phenyl-methyl siloxane having the average general formula as specified in claim 1 and
of a polytetrafluoroethylene powdered solid. According to appellants, the lubricant composition
as specified in claim 1 and as encompassed by claim 9 withstands high temperatures and prevents
the spark plug boot from bonding to the spark plug (specification, e.g., page 2).
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Lontz 2,644,802 Jul. 7, 1953
Wright 3,671,429 Jun. 20, 1972
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lontz or Wright, considered separately.
Appellants, in the brief (page 3), have presented three groups of claims: claims 1-7; claim
8; and claims 9-11. We decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1, 8 and 9. 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) (1997).
We affirm the ground of rejection with respect to appealed claims 1 through 7 and reverse
with respect to appealed claims 8 through 11.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,
we refer to the examiner’s answer and to appellants’ brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
As an initial matter, we find that, when considered in light of the written description in
the specification as interpreted by one of ordinary skill in this art, see, e.g., In re Morris, 127
F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the plain language of appealed
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007