Appeal No. 2006-1425
Application No. 10/277,260
The appellants’ invention relates to a method for maintaining the quality of
lubricant in the engine of a mobile vehicle (specification, p. 2). A copy of the claims
under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
The Prior Art
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Boyle et al. (Boyle) 5,964,318 Oct. 12, 1999
Margrey et al. (Margrey) 6,192,321 Feb. 20, 2001
Appellants admitted prior art (AAPA).
The Rejections
Claims 1 to 3, 7 to 9, and 16 to 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Boyle.
Claims 3 to 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and
Boyle and further in view of Margrey.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed October 14, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
1 The examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn (answer at
page 2).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013