Appeal 2007-4193
Application 10/367,432
Claim 1 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a lubricating oil additive
composition, and is representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A lubricating oil additive composition comprising:
(a) one or more ethylene carbonate-treated succinimides;
(b) one or more borated succinimides, and
(c) one or more dispersed aromatic dicarboxylic acid corrosion
inhibitors which are succinimide salts or one or more aromatic dicarboxylic
acids, wherein the corrosion inhibitor is prepared by reacting polyisobutenyl
succinic anhydride, having a polyisobutenyl group with a number average
molecular weight of about 1100-1500, with one or more polyamines, which
provides a reaction product that is then reacted with terephthalic acid.
We note here that the word “or” appearing in the second line of clause
(c) of this claim should be “of” in view of the context of the claim language
as well as the disclosure in the Specification and claim 1 as originally filed
(Specification, e.g., 2:23).
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Stuart US 3,287,271 Nov. 22, 1966
Willis, Jr. (Willis) US 5,861,363 Jan. 19, 1999
Appellants request review of this ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) (Br. 4): claims 1 through 11 as unpatentable over Willis in
combination with Stuart (Answer 3).
Appellants argue the claims as a group (Br. 5). Thus, we decide this
appeal based on claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness and whether
Appellants’ arguments and evidence in the Specification rebut the prima
facie case.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013