Appeal No. 2006-0623
Application No. 10/181,859
As a rebuttal to the prima facie case established by the
examiner, the appellant argues that “an aminic antioxidant in
addition to a trinuclear molybdenum compound to an oil
formulation containing a dispersant will result in an
unexpectedly greater degree of control of such soot induced
viscosity increase as compared to the addition of a phenolic
antioxidant in addition to a trinuclear molybdenum composition to
the same oil formulation (emphasis original).” See the Brief,
pages 6-7. In support of this argument, the appellant refers to
the relative viscosities of test oils formulations O, P, M and N
tabulated in Tables 4, 5 and 6 at pages 10 through 12 of the
specification. Id. Tables 4, 5 and 6 show that the employment
of either oxtylated/butylated diphenylamine or an alkylated
phenyl-alpha-naphthylamine, as opposed to “a high molecular
weight phenolic antioxidant” in the exemplified test oil
formulations imparts an improved relative viscosities from 1.20
to 1.19 and from 1.30 to 1.26 or 1.24, respectively. Having
reviewed the showing in the specification, we determine that the
appellant has not demonstrated that the claimed subject matter as
a whole imparts unexpected results. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077,
1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972)(The appellant has the burden of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007