Appeal No. 1999-1808
Application 08/826,305
and water to produce a lubricant having improved lubricating properties.” (Appeal Brief,
page 8, lines 5 - 10).
We disagree. The Appellants miss the point of the combination of Nosov with the
remaining references, and unduly narrowly read the disclosure of Nosov. Nosov states
that he was exploring the properties of solid lubricants by applying them on a surface as
a powder without a binder to avoid side effects (see page 1, paragraph 2). Nosov
taught one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
molybdenum disulfide lubricants with antimony sulfide (see, e.g. the title and page 1,
last sentence).
Nosov also teaches that, under appropriate conditions, the addition of antimony
sulfides to molybdenum disulfides will result in improved durability (page 3, paragraph 2,
line 5) and improved lubrication (page 3, paragraph 3, line 2). Finally, Nosov discloses
the addition of Sb2S3 to MoS2 in a weight ratio of MoS2:Sb2S3 of from 2.3-9:11. Thus,
we conclude that the teaching of Nosov is sufficient to teach that solid molybdenum
disulfide lubricating agents can be improved, in a variety of binder systems, by
incorporating an antimony disulfide.
Laepple taught the inclusion of (a) water, (b) a solid lubricant including a majority
of molybdenum disulfide, and (c) an acrylic resin binding agent in the recited amounts of
MoS2: hydrophilic resin of 0.9-4.3:1 (Laepple, column 2, lines 35-52). Accordingly, we
conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Examiner’s prima facie case
of obviousness for claims 1, 2, and 16.2
1Claim 1 recites a molybdenum disulfide:antimony sulfide ratio of from 1:0.05 to 1:1.2, which corresponds
to 20:1 - 0.84:1; claim 2 recites a narrower ratio of 1:0.2 - 1:1.2, which corresponds to 5:1 - 0.84:1.
2 The rejection cites numerous references, each in combination with Nosov; we select Laepple to discuss.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007