Appeal No. 2004-1861
Application No. 09/846,483
crankcase, are not intended to maintain insolubles in suspension
over a prolonged operating period and thus, do not
conventionally contain a dispersant.” (Appeal brief at 6.) We
note, however, that the appellants have not identified any
evidence to indicate that Clarke’s lubricating oil composition
cannot be used as a TPEO. Also, as we discussed above, the
appellants’ relied upon evidence is insufficient to prove any
unexpected result over the prior art because it is not
commensurate in scope with appealed claims 1 and 10.
The appellants argue that “[c]laims 11 [sic, 10] and 17,
expressly require the addition of a dispersant-free lubricating
oil composition into the crankcase of a four-stroke diesel
engine...” (Appeal brief at 7.) This argument is also
unpersuasive because no such limitations are recited in appealed
claim 10.
For these reasons, we uphold the examiner’s rejection of
all the appealed claims as unpatentable over Clarke.
Fujitsu
Fujitsu discloses lubricating oil compositions for internal
combustion engines having excellent anti-wear properties with
respect to moving valve parts in four-stroke engines. (Column
1, lines 5-9.) According to Fujitsu, the lubricating oil
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007