Appeal No. 2005-1816 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/727,622
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (filed May 26,
2004) and reply brief (filed August 30, 2004) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Schechter discloses spool valve control of an electrohydraulic camless valvetrain
of an internal combustion engine. As explained by Schechter in column 1, lines 28-42,
the use of electrohydraulic control for engine intake and exhaust valves permits greater
flexibility in engine valve control than is possible with conventional cam-driven
valvetrains, thereby permitting various engine operating conditions to be accounted for
through independent control of the engine valves in order to optimize engine
performance. Schechter is silent with respect to the use of lubricating fluids for the
valvetrain.
Manka discloses lubricants and functional fluids containing heterocyclic
compounds characterized by enhanced antiwear properties. Manka teaches that
engine lubricants require the presence of additives to protect the engine from wear and
explains that the principal antiwear additive used for almost 40 years, zinc
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007