Appeal No. 96-3845
Application No. 08/209,260
loader component, respectively separate capsules having top
portions with an appearance different from one another and
wherein the filled bottom portion of first capsules are connected
to the top portions of second capsules, as claimed. The Feton
document is simply silent on the method, as claimed. We
recognize that another pictorial showing in the brochure portrays
capsules wherein the bottoms differ from top portions thereof.
However, for all we can tell, these capsules were simply supplied
by a manufacturer as shown, for subsequent filling on the Feton
machine. For these reasons, we determine that the evidence
relied upon does not support a conclusion of obviousness under 35
USC §103.
The rejection of claims 1 through 3, 19, and 22 through 24
We understand from our analysis of the Feton reference that
the disclosed automatic loading device and automatic capsule
filling machine are specifically designed for “one single capsule
size”. In other words, the document instructs that a separate
loading device and filling machine would be required for each of
the capsule sizes 000, 00, 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 mentioned therein.
The relatively sparse disclosure of the Feton brochure does
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007