Appeal No. 2003-0808
Application No. 09/343,334
ordinary skill in the art would have been led, prima facie, to
add diphenylamine into the lubricating composition of either
Cupples or Sauer in order to increase oxidative stability.
(Answer, page 7.)
The appellants merely argue that “none of the
polyalphaolefins of Cupples, Sauer, or Wu has been hydrogenated
to a modified Bromine Index less than 433.” (Appeal brief, page
18.) As we discussed above, however, Cupples and Sauer both
appear to teach hydrogenated products having bromine indexes
within the appellants’ claimed ranges. The appellants have not
satisfied their burden of proving otherwise.
For these reasons, we uphold the examiner’s rejection on
this ground.
Summary
In summary, our disposition of this appeal is as follows:
I. the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed
claims 13 through 24 as anticipated by Wu is reversed;
II. the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed
claims 1 through 8 and 27 as unpatentable over Sauer
in view of Wu is affirmed, but the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 10 through 12 as
unpatentable over Sauer in view of Wu is reversed;
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007