Appeal 2007-0691
Application 10/465,423
1 oils being described at col. 9:2. Likewise, Ciba describes the use of
2 sulphurized vegetable oil. Published Application 4 [¶ 0097].
3 Based on her analysis of Chasan, the Examiner found that Chasan
4 describes lubricants which can contain all the ingredients called for by the
5 Ciba claims on appeal. Answer 4.
6 The Examiner's findings are more than adequately supported by
7 Chasan.
8 Chasan Declaration
9 In response to the Examiner's prior art rejection, Ciba submitted a
10 declaration of Dr. David E. Chasan (one of the named inventors in the
11 application on appeal). "Declaration under Rule 132," filed 08 June 2006.
12 The declaration describes experiments which are said to be "an
13 extension of those in Example 1" of the specification. Declaration 1, fourth
14 paragraph.
15 The experiments were designed to compare the lead reducing
16 characteristics of the use of (1) IRGAMET 30, which is the triazole set out
17 in the claims on appeal and the preferred triazole described in the Chasan
18 patent, versus IRGAMET 39, which is another triazole described in the
19 Chasan patent (col. 4:60-65).
20 According to the experiments, the following results are said to have
21 been obtained.
22 A base formulation (a non-corrosive engine oil) with no metal
23 deactivator resulted in a lead content of 75 ppm.
24 A base formulation with only TPS® 27 [diternonlytrisulfide] and no
25 IRGAMET produced 117 ppm of lead.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013