Appeal No. 2001-1249
Application 08/658,341
claims 25 and 32-34. Further, claims 24, 40, 41, 43 and 44 may
be considered to stand or fall together, but not claim 26.” We
address the claims separately to the extent justified by the
appellant’s arguments. See In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-
79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979); In re Herbert, 461 F.2d 1390,
1391, 174 USPQ 259, 260 (CCPA 1972); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
King discloses a lubrication blend which consists
essentially of at least one complex sulfide of antimony having a
specified formula, at least one antimony oxide, and at least one
lamellar crystalline solid lubricant (col. 1, lines 39-49). The
lubrication blend can be combined with any suitable lubricant
base, the exemplified lubricant bases including greases and
synthetic fluids (col. 3, lines 31-38). The synthetic fluids
can, and often do, include a thickener (col. 3, lines 56-57).
Because the thickeners disclosed by King (col. 3, lines 57-61)
are the same as those disclosed by Tubbs (col. 2, lines 6-9) for
forming a grease, it reasonably appears that King’s mixture of
synthetic lubricant and thickener is a grease. King’s thickeners
include soaps, which are among the appellant’s gelling agent
additive thickeners (specification, page 4, lines 19-23), and
silica and clay, which are among the appellant’s inorganic
thickeners (specification, page 12, lines 21-23). King’s silica
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007