Appeal No. 2003-0808
Application No. 09/343,334
IV. claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
“Cupples [] in view of Wu [] as applied to claims 1-4,
6-12, 26 and 28 above and/or claims 1-8, 10-12 and 27
as applied to Sauer [] in view of Wu []above, and
further in view of Van Dyck Fear [].”
We affirm rejection II as applied against claims 1 through
8 and 27. We also affirm rejections III and IV. We reverse,
however, rejection I in its entirety and rejection II as applied
against claims 10 through 12.1
I. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): Claims 13-24 over Wu
The examiner’s position is as follows:
The reference of Wu [] discloses a
polyalphaolefin with a Bromine number less than 4
(e.g. 04). See column 3, lines 50-51. Since the
Bromine Index is equal to 1000 times the Bromine
Number, the reference of Wu [] succeeds in disclosing
a polyalphaolefin with a Bromine Index of 0 to 4000 mg
of bromine per 100 g [of polyalphaolefin].[2]
1 The appellants state that the appealed claims should be
grouped as follows: (i) claims 1-4; (ii) claims 5-8 and 27;
(iii) claims 9-12 and 28; (iv) claims 13-24; (v) claim 25; and
(vi) claim 26. (Appeal brief filed Aug. 8, 2002, paper 19, pp.
8-9.) Accordingly, for rejection II, we limit our discussion to
claims 1, 5, and 10. For rejection III, we limit our discussion
to claims 1, 6, 9, and 26. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1995).
[2] Bromine number is determined according to ASTM D1159,
while the appellants’ recited Bromine Index is measured
according to a modified version of ASTM D2710, designated as
K801. (Specification, pp. 5-6.) Both the examiner and the
appellants seem to agree that Bromine Number is 1000 times the
Bromine Index. (Specification, p. 5; answer, p. 3.)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007