Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 optical signals transmitted via signal transmission line 223 to computer
2 controller 230. Specification, p. 24, ll. 8-10.
3 The Appellants argue that O’Rear and Gatto do not disclose the
4 invention of claim 15. Appeal Brief at 11, 12. Specifically, the Appellants
5 argue that neither O’Rear nor Gatto discloses, motivates, or suggests an
6 automatic high throughput system operated under program control, i.e., one
7 that automatically screens lubricating oil compositions for oxidation
8 stability. Appeal Brief at 14.
9 We find that two aspects of the appellants’ invention as recited in
10 claim 15 are automated. First, the equipment used to provide the plurality of
11 lubricating oil compositions is automated. Specification, p. 5, ll. 19-21
12 (defining “program control”). Second, the means for transferring the
13 oxidation stability data to the computer controller is automated.
14 Specification, p. 24, ll. 8-10.
15 It is of no moment that Gatto and O’Rear do not disclose an
16 automated system within the scope of claim 15. The Examiner merely relies
17 on Gatto and O’Rear to establish that the oxidation stability tests disclosed
18 therein were known to be useful for testing the oxidation stability of
19 lubricating oil compositions. Answer at 14, 15. Gatto and O’Rear also
20 establish that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
21 importance of testing lubricating oil compositions for oxidation stability.
22 The Examiner relies on Kolosov as teaching a high-throughput,
23 automatic apparatus for screening lubricating oil compositions. See
24 Kolosov, para. [0059] (contemplating an automated sampling device);
25 Kolosov, para. [0068] (disclosing an automated means for transferring data
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013