Appeal No. 1998-2642
Application No. 08/697,339
2). The examiner finds that Staniforth discloses a method of
coating pharmaceutical tablets by feeding tablets on an
inclined, vibrated and perforated conveyor and teaches that
liquid and dry powder application is known in the prior art
(Answer, pages 2 and 4). The examiner finds that Staniforth
fails to disclose or teach a conveyor with treads and risers
and therefore applies Burgess to show such a conveyor used for
coating articles with the advantages of even coating and
uniform coating of both sides of the article (Answer,
paragraph bridging pages 2-3). From these findings, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
substitute the conveyor of Burgess for the conveyor of
Staniforth for its attendant advantages (Answer, page 3).
Appellants argue that Burgess is non-analogous art and
therefore improperly combined with Staniforth as the
evidentiary basis for the rejection (Brief, pages 8-10; Reply
Brief, page 4). Accordingly, before any review of the
examiner’s obviousness analysis, we must determine whether
Burgess is analogous art and is properly combined with
Staniforth. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007