Appeal 2007-0511
Application 10/699,508
1 Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites that the step of measuring
2 the oxidation stability of each sample comprises using infrared spectroscopy.
3 The Examiner finds that Kolosov fails to teach that the disclosed
4 lubricants can be screened for oxidation stability using infrared
5 spectroscopy. The Examiner finds that McFarland discloses that infrared
6 spectroscopy may be used to quantify the stability of materials in a
7 combinatorial array and characterize chemical reactions. The Examiner
8 concludes that the invention of claim 7 would have been obvious to one of
9 ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of Kolosov,
10 McFarland, and O’Rear or Gatto. Final Office Action mailed November 4,
11 2005 at 10-11; Answer at 8-9.
12 The Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s findings or
13 conclusion of obviousness as to claim 7 in the Appeal Brief. Rather, the
14 Appellants argue that McFarland does not cure the deficiencies of Kolosov,
15 O’Rear, and Gatto as to claim 1. Appeal Brief at 16-18.
16 For the reasons set forth above, the teachings of Kolosov and O’Rear
17 or Gatto render obvious the subject matter of claim 1. Therefore, there are
18 no deficiencies that McFarland must cure.
19 4. Claims 11-14
20 Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and recites that the step of outputting
21 comprises storing the results of step (b) on a data carrier.
22 The Examiner finds that Smrcka teaches a method of testing a new
23 chemical product and storing the results in a data carrier such as a computer
24 readable medium. Final Office Action mailed November 4, 2005 at 11;
25 Answer at 9. We also find that Kolosov stores data such as responses of
22
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013