Appeal No. 2007-0495
Application No. 10/699,510
The appellants contend that the claimed subject matter would not have been
obvious in view of the teachings in Kolosov alone or in combination with Shtein.
Specifically, the appellants argue that (1) the claimed lubricant oil compositions would
not have been obvious in view of the teachings in Kolosov and (2) the means for
combining selected quantities of at least one base oil and at least one additive recited in
claim 23 would not have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Kolosov and
Shtein. The examiner held that the claimed lubricant oil compositions would have been
obvious in view of the teachings in Kolosov. The examiner further held that the claimed
means for combining selected quantities of at least one base oil and at least one additive
would have been obvious in view of the combined teachings of Kolosov and Shtein.
GROUPING OF CLAIMS
The appellants argue claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 22 as one group and claims 5 and 23
to 37 as another group. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, claims 2 to 4 and 6 to 22
stand or fall with patentability of claim 1 and claims 5 and 24 to 37 stand or fall with the
patentability of claim 23. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
ISSUES
Have the appellants shown that the examiner has failed to establish that the
claimed lubricant oil compositions would have been obvious in view of the teachings in
Kolosov?
Have the appellants shown that the examiner has failed to establish that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a base oil and an additive
using a mixing chamber in view of the combined teachings of Kolosov and Shtein?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013