The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte PRAKASH S. PATEL and
SHABBIR ATTARWALA
__________
Appeal No. 2006-3310
Application No. 10/282,424
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before GRIMES, LINCK, and LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims to anti-seize compositions and methods of making
them. The Examiner has rejected the claims as indefinite and obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 134. We affirm-in-part.
Background
Flowable anti-seize lubricants are available to prevent metal fittings from
corrosion, seizing, and galling in harsh chemical environments and at high
temperatures. Specification, [0003]. Many of these compositions “tend to migrate once
applied, thus creating imprecise application and inconvenient and messy handling.”
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007