Appeal No. 2004-1861
Application No. 09/846,483
The appellants’ argument (appeal brief at 5 and 7-8) that
Fujitsu is non-analogous prior art is unpersuasive for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to Clarke.
The appellants contend that Fujitsu does not disclose
compositions having the here recited TBN of 25 or greater.
(Appeal brief at 8.) We note, however, that metallic detergents
C and D (calcium salicylate) of Fujitsu’s examples have Ca
contents of 7.2 and 10.3 mass% and TBN of 340 and 290 mg KOH/g,
respectively.
The appellants urge that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the
art would be aware of the fact that crankcase lubricants
formulated for car and truck engines conventionally contain
ashless dispersant.” (Appeal brief at 9.) This position lacks
merit because the appellants fail to identify any evidence in
the record to support this contention. Moreover, this
contention appears to be contrary to the teachings of Fujitsu,
which suggests that the use of ashless dispersant is optional.
The appellants argue that Fujitsu “fails to fairly suggest
that formulating a lubricating oil composition with no overbased
metal detergent other than the overbased metal salicylate
detergent will provide any advantage.” (Appeal brief at 10.)
This argument is also unpersuasive. Fujitsu suggests that the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007