Appeal No. 97-2159
Application No. 08/127,555
which are not directly related to each other.
An example of this inappropriate action by the examiner
involves the limitation in the appealed independent claims
concerning a wetted paste of material (claim 10) or a wetted
powder (claim 27). Regarding this feature, Schmitt discloses
that molded tablet triturates were “originally made from moist
materials on a triturate mold and [are] now usually made on a
tablet machine” (column 9, lines 53-55). Because patentee’s
triturate mold disclosure is not directly related to his
tablet machine disclosure, the “moist materials” feature which
is attributed by Schmitt to a triturate mold cannot also be
attributed to a tablet machine as the examiner necessarily has
done in her section 102 rejection.
In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the
examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 cannot be
sustained.
As for the section 103 rejection, it is here appropriate
to clarify that the examiner’s obviousness position is limited
to the powder coating features of dependent claims 3, 4, 16
and 17. Thus, the section 103 rejection formulated by the
examiner does not even address much less cure the deficiencies
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007