Appeal No. 2007-0495
Application No. 10/699,510
Based on the record before us, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that a mixing chamber, such as the mixing chamber disclosed in Shtein,
would have been an efficient and effective means for mixing materials, such as a
lubricant and an additive, prior to dispensing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to mix the lubricant compositions disclosed in Kolosov in
the mixing chamber of Shtein prior to dispensing onto a substrate.
C. Double patenting rejection
The examiner provisionally rejected claims 1, 13, and 14 under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
20, 22, and 23 of copending Application 10/699,529. See final Office action, pp. 2-3. In
the appeal brief, the appellants do not challenge the double patenting rejection. Rather,
the appellants state, “Upon resolution of all outstanding issues remaining in this
application, Appellants will submit a Terminal Disclaimer to obviate the provisional
rejection.” See appeal brief, p. 13.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The appellants have not shown that the examiner erred in concluding that the
claimed lubricant oil compositions would have been obvious in view of the teachings in
Kolosov.
The appellants have not shown that the examiner erred in concluding 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.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013