Appeal No. 1999-1808
Application 08/826,305
DISCUSSION
The Invention
The Appellants’ invention relates to an aqueous coating agent for forming
lubricating films suitable for prolonged use on sliding members of torque-transmitting
parts utilized in, e.g. automotive drive and prime mover systems (Specification, page 1,
lines 10 - 13). The coating agent includes a hydrophilic resin, a solid lubricating agent
which is MoS2 and at least one antimony sulfide (Sb2S3 or Sb2S5) and water. The
weight ratio of MoS2 to antimony sulfide is from 1:0.5 to 1:1.2 and the weight ratio of the
lubricating agent to the hydrophilic resin is from 0.7 to 3. (Specification, page 2, lines
22-27).
The Rejection of Claims 1, 2, and 16 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Over Parkinson,
Laepple, Vlasyuk, Morita, Dai-Nippon EP, or Dai-Nippon JP In View of Nosov
The Examiner has stated that Parkinson, Laepple, Vlasyuk, Morita, and Dai-
Nippon (EP and JP) disclose aqueous coating agents comprising a hydrophilic resin
and a solid lubricant of MoS2. (Examiner’s Answer, page 3, lines 17-21). The Examiner
further notes that both Laepple (column 2, lines 35-40) and Morita (column 2, lines 50-
57 and columns 9-10, table I) disclose that the ratio of molybdenum disulfide and
hydrophilic resin can be 0.9-4.3:1 and 0.7-4.0:1 respectively (Examiner’s Answer, page
4, lines 1-6).
The Examiner states that the claimed antimony sulfide in the recited weight ratio
of from 0.83-20:1 is not recited, but asserts that Nosov discloses the addition of Sb2S3
to MoS2 in a weight ratio of MoS2: Sb2S3 of from 2.3-9:1, concluding that it would have
been obvious to employ the Sb2S3 of Nosov with the MoS2 of the other references in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007