Appeal 2007-4193
Application 10/367,432
K are reported in Tables 2, 3, and 4 as stated by Appellants (Specification
Tables 2-4; see above pp. 4-5). We further find that in addition to
differences in the number average molecular weight of 1000 for the
polyisobutenyl group of the corrosion inhibitor used in Corrosion Inhibitors
1 and 2 (Inhibitors 1 and 2, respectively), and of 1100 for the corrosion
inhibitor used in Corrosion Inhibitor 3 (Inhibitor 3), Inhibitors 1 and 3 are
prepared with corrosion inhibitors which are each prepared from a different
polyamine, and Inhibitor 2 is prepared with a corrosion inhibitor which is
prepared from a mixture of the two polyamines; and the corrosion inhibitors
of Corrosion Inhibitors 1 and 2 are prepared in a different manner than that
of Inhibitor 3 (Specification 17-18). We find Sample C, containing 0.50 %
Corrosion Inhibitor 1, is prepared with one less ingredient and different
amounts of common ingredients than Sample G containing 0.40% Corrosion
Inhibitor 2 and Sample K containing 0.40% Corrosion Inhibitor 3 (id. 18, 19
and 20). Sample C was evaluated with the “Mack T-10 engine test . . .
developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)” (id.
20:31-21:20). Samples G and K “were evaluated in a bearing corrosion
bench test . . . designed to mimic the Mack T-10 engine test where the wear
phase is preceded by a lubricant degradation phase where the oil sees
significant TBN depletion as a result of contamination with condensed
acids” and “a sample of the candidate oil was contaminated with H2SO4” (id.
22:5-14).
Appellants have the burden to submit an explanation or evidence
explaining the practical significance of the asserted results vis-à-vis the
teachings of the applied references, and why the results would have been
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013