Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 The Appellants appear to be arguing that the phrase “under program
2 control” in claim 1 requires an automated step of measuring oxidation
3 stability. However, according to the Appellants’ Specification, “program
4 control” is defined as meaning that the equipment used to provide the
5 plurality of lubricating oil compositions is automated, NOT that the step of
6 measuring oxidation stability is automated. Specification, p. 5, ll. 19-21.
7 For this reason, the Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
8 b. Means for measuring oxidation stability
9 Claim 15 recites a system for screening lubricating oil composition
10 samples, under program control, comprising “d) means for measuring the
11 oxidation stability of the selected samples to obtain oxidation stability data
12 and for transferring the oxidation stability data to the computer controller.”
13 The Examiner concludes that the means recited in part d) invokes
14 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. Answer at 11. The Appellants do not
15 challenge this conclusion in the Reply Brief.
16 According to the Appellants’ Specification, the “means for measuring
17 the oxidation stability of the selected samples to obtain oxidation stability
18 data” include “subjecting the sample to an oxygen environment and
19 measuring the effect of oxidation upon the sample over a predetermined
20 period of time.” Specification, p. 24, ll. 10-12.
21 The Appellants disclose several oxidation stability tests, including the
22 Lube Oil Oxidator test method (Specification, p. 24, l. 13-p. 25, l. 16) and
23 the thin film oxygen uptake test method (Specification, p. 28, l. 19-p. 29, l.
24 8).
25 According to the Appellants’ Specification the means “for transferring
26 the oxidation stability data to the computer controller” are electrical or
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013