Appeal No. 2001-2094
Application 09/203,894
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection and remand the
application to the examiner. We need to address only claim 1,
which is the broadest composition claim.1
Jones discloses an antioxidant composition for oxidation
unstable materials such as lubricating oil (col. 1, lines 1-9).
The composition includes quinolines having either the
heterocyclic ring or both the heterocyclic and benzene rings of
the compound saturated with hydrogen, one of the quinolines being
1,2,3,4-tetrahydroquinoline (col. 3, lines 1-14). The quinoline
preferably is used in combination with a conventional amine or
phenol antioxidant, one of the disclosed amines being a secondary
diarylamine (phenyl-$-naphthylamine) within the formula in the
appellants’ claim 1 (col. 1, lines 41-42; col. 3, lines 17-22).
Jones states that “it has been discovered that hydrogenated
quinolines in some manner act with conventional types of
antioxidants to provide a synergistic effect, remarkably
enhancing the antioxidant properties of these compounds” (col. 2,
lines 13-17). Jones does not disclose that the quinoline can be
a dihydroquinoline.
1 The broadest method claim (15) recites adding to a
lubricating oil the composition recited in claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007