Appeal No. 2006-3310 Page 11
Application No. 10/282,424
Claims 22 and 23
Claim 22 is directed to a method for preparing a solid anti-seize composition
involving selecting a grease and naphthenic petroleum oil, mixing the grease and oil,
and then adding a solid anti-seize lubricant and polymeric matrix to the grease and oil
composition.
The Examiner cites WO ‘628 for its teaching of “compositions comprising a
polymeric matrix present in an amount sufficient to render the composition non-flowable
[at] temperatures of at least about 120°F.” Answer, page 4. She argues:
In this case, WO 00/44528, Hefling and WO 00/25628 are all directed to
compositions for preventing seizing of threaded fasteners. Accordingly,
one having ordinary skill in the art would have considered the teachings of
these references.
. . . .
WO ‘628, like WO ‘528, is directed to a composition for coating a threaded
part.
Answer, page 7.
Appellants assert:
WO 628 does not add to WO 528 to teach or suggest the present
invention. WO 628 is an adhesive. Adhesives typically promote the seizing
of at least two surfaces. Thus, the combination of WO 628 (an adhesive)
with WO 528 (an anti-seize agent) is clearly contradictory. Because WO
628 is an adhesive, it in fact teaches away from a method of preparing an
anti-seize composition, as is claimed by Appellants.
Brief, pages 11-12.
In making an obviousness determination, it is necessary to consider the scope
and content of the prior art. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060
(citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 US 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007