Appeal No. 2006-3310 Page 9
Application No. 10/282,424
grease in an anti-seizing composition by including it in his preferred specific
embodiments. Id., column 7, lines 5-10; column 8, lines 40-45; column 10, lines 50.
The skilled worker would have been motivated to have selected grease as a component
of a dispersion system in view of Helfing’s teaching of it as a typical and preferred
alternative for anti-seizing compositions.
Appellants’ argument focuses on the disclosure by Hefling that the metal flakes,
which are the anti-seizing agent, are first dispersed in oil, and then formulated with other
ingredients, which include grease. Reply, pages 4-5. They assert that grease is not
used as a dispersion system. We agree with Appellants that Hefling’s manufacturing
process involves the production of an initial dispersion of the metal flakes in oil to which
grease is added in later. However, this does not foreclose the subsequent addition of
grease for its prior art function as a dispersing agent. Hefling includes grease in its
preferred embodiments, which we consider a strong teaching to add it to an anti-seizing
composition.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that claim 1 is prima facie obvious over WO
‘528 in view of Hefling. This rejection is affirmed. Claims 2-6, 8-19, and 24 fall with
claim 1 because they were not separately argued.
Claim 20
Claim 20 is drawn to a “dispensing container” which comprises the “solid anti-
seize” of claim 1. Appellants argue that WO ‘528 and Hefling fail to “teach a grease or
an article of manufacture comprising a grease-containing anti-seize composition, as is
recited in claim 20.” Brief, page 8.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007