Appeal 2006-2269
Application 10/051,938
2. Claims 38-40, 43, 52, 54-56, 59, 67-70, 73, 77-78 and 81-84 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Duncan in
view of Funkhouser.1
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the Appellant
and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the Brief and
Reply Brief, and to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition
thereof.
The claims were not argued separately. Accordingly we choose
claims 38 and 46 as the representative claims on which it render our
decision.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION OVER DUNCAN IN VIEW OF
FUNKHOUSER
The Examiner rejected claims 38-40, 43, 52, 54-56, 59, 67-70, 73,
77-78 and 81-84 under § 103(a) over Duncan in view of Funkhouser. The
Examiner stated that Duncan discloses biodegradable lubricants including
the use of these lubricants as hydraulic fluids (Answer 3). Referring to
Duncan’s Table 8, the Examiner found that the disclosure of
“TPE/C810/Ck8” includes pentaerythitol (a polyol) with a carboxylic acid
(C810) having a mixture of linear C6 and C8 acids, and a biodegradability of
at least 80% (Answer 3-4). However, the Examiner noted that Duncan fails
to disclose the claimed shock absorber structure. The Examiner found that
1 There appears to be an inconsistency between the rejection of at least claim
40, which recites that the hindered polyol is trimethylolpropane, and the
allowance of claim 53 which appears to be identical to claim 40. See our
REMAND section for a more detailed discussion of the conflict.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013