Appeal 2006-3208
Application 10/097,232
optimize the amount of lubricant accordingly in order to obtain these
characteristics. Thus, again, in the absence of any evidence of unexpected
results, the invention claimed in claims 60 to 65 would have been obvious to
the skilled artisan.
Based on the above, we conclude dependent claims 2-7, 10-19, and
60-65 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on
the teachings of Li and Goodrich. We further conclude claims 8 and 9
would have been obvious based on Li, Goodrich, and Alder. Each of our
obviousness conclusions are further supported by Appellants’ own teachings
regarding prior art commercial conveyor lubricants.
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) ground of rejection of claims 1-
19 and 60-65, all the claims on appeal.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new ground of rejection
under § 103(a) as follows: Claims 1-7, 10-19, and 60-65 based on Li and
Goodrich, further in view of the commercial conveyor lubricants disclosed
by Appellants; claims 8 and 9 based on Li, Goodrich, and Alder, further in
view of the commercial conveyor lubricants disclosed by Appellants.
TIME PERIODS FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2006). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides: "A new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review."
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013