Appeal 2006-3208
Application 10/097,232
Further, one skilled in the art would have known to use a chelating
agent to aid in the removal of microorganisms, even without the teachings of
DICOLUBE MSDS. Finally, based on the DICOLUBE MSDS disclosure, it
appears to us more likely than not prior art commercial lubricants at the time
of the invention already contained such chelators. We reject any
unsupported arguments to the contrary.
4. CLAIMS 16-18: A SURFACTANT
Claims 16-18 additionally required a surfactant, with claims 17 and 18
specifying particular amounts of the surfactant. Again, based on the record
before us, it appears the use of surfactants in conveyor lubricants was well
known in the art at the time of Appellants’ invention (see FFs 7-9). Thus,
we conclude many of the commercial products identified by Li and
Appellants would have contained surfactants. As with the chelator
limitations, we reject any unsupported arguments to the contrary. Further,
with respect to claims 17 and 18, absent evidence of unexpected results due
to the recited ranges, optimization of the amount of surfactant would have
been within the skill in the art.
5. CLAIM 60: COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION
Claim 60 requires the coefficient of friction to be “less than about
0.1,” a limitation clearly disclosed in Li (FF 5).
6. CLAIMS 61-65: AMOUNT OF LUBRICANT
Claims 61-65 further limit claim 1 by requiring various amounts of
lubricant, from “at least about 0.1 wt.%” (claim 60) to “about 3 to about 50
wt.%” (claim 64). Li teaches the sought-after characteristics of a conveyor
lubricant (FFs 11 & 12). Appellants seek the same characteristics (Spec. 11-
12). Given Li’s teachings, it would have been within the skill of the art to
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013