Appeal No. 2006-0623
Application No. 10/181,859
Gao et al. (Gao) 6,734,150 B2 May 11, 2004
(Filed Nov. 12, 2002)
Smalheer et al., Lubricant Additives, The Lezius-Hiles Co.,
Cleveland, Ohio, pp. 1-11 (1967) (hereinafter referred to as
“Smalheer”).
REJECTION
Claims 11 through 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of
Fang and Smalheer. Claims 11 through 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 under
the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting as unpatentable over claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent
6,734,150 B2 issued to Gao on May 11, 2004.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
prior art, including all of the evidence and arguments advanced
by both the examiner and the appellant in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
the examiner’s Section 103 rejection and obviousness-type double
patenting rejection are well founded. Accordingly, we affirm the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection and obviousness-type double
patenting rejection for essentially the factual findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer and below.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007