Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 to a computer). Significantly, the Appellants have not challenged this
2 finding in the Appeal Brief.
3 c. Claimed lubricant compositions
4 Claim 1 is directed to a high throughput method for screening
5 lubricating oil compositions comprising “(i) a major amount of at least one
6 base oil of lubricating viscosity and (ii) a minor amount of at least one
7 lubricating oil additive.” Similarly, claim 15 is directed to a system for
8 screening lubricating oil composition samples comprising “(i) a major
9 amount of at least one base oil of lubricating viscosity and (ii) a minor
10 amount of at least one lubricating oil additive.”
11 The Examiner found that compounds analyzed by the method and
12 system disclosed in Kolosov can be lubricants having an additive therein.
13 The Examiner found that “[i]t is inherent that in a lubricant composition
14 having an additive therein that the base lubricant oil is present in a major
15 amount while the additive is present in a lesser amount.” Final Office
16 Action mailed November 4, 2005 at 13.
17 The Appellants argue that lubricating oil compositions do not have to
18 contain a major amount of at least one base oil of lubricating viscosity and a
19 minor amount of at least one lubricating oil additive. The Appellants argue
20 that a lubricating oil composition can be a concentrate that contains a major
21 amount of a lubricating oil composition and a minor amount of base oil of
22 lubricating viscosity as a diluent for the concentrate. Appeal Brief at 10.
23 In response, the Examiner finds that an additive, by definition, means
24 any substance incorporated into a base material, usually in a low
25 concentration, to perform a specific function, i.e., a stabilizer, preservative,
26 dispersing agent, antioxidant, etc. For support, the Examiner points to a
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013