Appeal No. 2006-0623
Application No. 10/181,859
column 2, line 3 and column 4, line 61 to column 5, line 27. As
also correctly found by the examiner (the Answer, page 3),
Fang teaches that other known lubricant additives may
be compatible with the invention and can be present in
the diesel oil being treated. These additives include
dispersants and antioxidants. See column 5, lines
62-67.
Although Fang does not mention specific antioxidants, the
examiner correctly finds that Smalheer teaches that “phenolic and
amine antioxidants are well-known in the lubricant art.” See the
Answer, page 3, together with Smalheer, page 7. Specifically,
Smalheer teaches that some of these phenolic and amine
antioxidants are considered “those older products which have
stood the test of time and competition in the additive industry.”
See page 7.
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to add the
proven antioxidant additive taught by Smalheer in the lubricant
composition used in Fang’s method, motivated by a reasonable
expectation of successfully inhibiting the oxidation of the
lubricant composition. Thus, we determine that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the
claimed subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007