Appeal No. 94-3726
Application 07/978,531
Similarly, the discussion above regarding the scope of
"comprises" in the appealed claims as including the use of a
"wet" biocide as a starting material in Anderson, with
subsequent removal of the water (see claim 1 of Anderson),
equally applies here in the analysis of obviousness-type
double patenting. As previously discussed, appellants' claimed
limitation of "continuous stirring" while cooling would have
been within the ordinary skill in the art as it was well known
to facilitate cooling by stirring.
The dependent claim limitations of appealed claims 2
through 10 are all disclosed in claims 1 through 5 of Anderson
except for the limitation of appealed claim 9 of using a high
speed mixer at certain rpms to produce the mixture of step (a)
in appealed claim 1. However, the use of a specific mixer an
mixing speed would have been well within the ordinary skill in
the art, especially since the desired mixing of step (a) in
appealed claim 1 and step (a) in claim 1 of Anderson produces
the same result, i.e., a preliminary dispersion of a solid
biocide in a carrier.
20
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007