Appeal No. 2006-1425
Application No. 10/277,260
rejections, and to the brief (filed July 25, 2005) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 to 3, 7 to 9 and 16 to
19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Boyle. In
support for this rejection the examiner finds that AAPA describes the invention as
claimed except that AAPA does not describe replacing less than all of the lubricant nor
calculating or predicting the quality of oil during operation of the engine. The examiner
relies on Boyle for teaching determining the quality of the engine lubricant and replacing
portion of the lubricant. The examiner concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to modify
the teaching of
AAPA/BOYLE et al
by determining a
pre-determined
lubricant quality
parameter as a
function or based
on an engine
operation period
between
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013