Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Kolosov
2 and O’Rear or Gatto.
3 2. Claim 9
4 Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites that the step of measuring
5 the oxidation stability of each sample is determined by differential scanning
6 calorimetry.
7 The Examiner finds that Kolosov does not teach that the disclosed
8 lubricants can be screened for oxidation stability using differential scanning
9 calorimetry. The Examiner finds that Perez teaches that differential
10 scanning calorimetry can be used to determine the oxidation stability of
11 liquid lubricant compositions containing antioxidant additives. The
12 Examiner concludes that the invention of claim 9 would have been obvious
13 to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of
14 Kolosov and Perez. Final Office Action mailed November 4, 2005 at 9-10;
15 Answer at 7-8.
16 The Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings or
17 conclusion of obviousness as to claim 9 in the Appeal Brief. Rather, the
18 Appellants argue that Perez does not cure the deficiencies of Kolosov as to
19 claim 1. Appeal Brief at 15-16.
20 For the reasons set forth above, the teachings of Kolosov and O’Rear
21 or Gatto render obvious the subject matter of claim 1.2 Therefore, there are
22 no deficiencies that Perez must cure.
23 3. Claims 7, 8, 20, and 21
2 Since claim 9 depends from claim 1, it is readily apparent that claim 9 is
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Kolosov, Perez, and O’Rear or Gatto.
21
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013