Ex Parte Lee et al - Page 3



               Appeal No. 2006-0400                                                                                              
               Application No. 09/917,433                                                                                        

               Reynolds    3,354,863   Nov. 28, 1967                                                                             
               Biehl et al. (Biehl)   4,217,851   Aug. 19, 1980                                                                  
               Glatt et al. (Glatt)   4,858,552   Aug. 22, 1989                                                                  
               Cody et al. (Cody)   4,993,264   Feb. 19, 1991                                                                    
               Luy  et al. (Luy)   5,632,102   May 27, 1997                                                                      
               Claims 13-16, 18 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable                            
               over Glatt in view of Reynolds in view of Luy and further in view of Cody, while claim 17 is                      
               correspondingly rejected over these references in combination with the Biehl reference.1                          
                      We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete discussion of the opposing                          
               viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning these rejections.                           
                                                            OPINION                                                              
                      For the reasons well stated in the answer, we will sustain each of the rejections advanced                 
               on this appeal.                                                                                                   
                      It is the appellants’ basic contention that “none of the cited prior art references disclose               
               [sic, discloses] monitoring an air inlet temperature, a product temperature, a spray liquid                       
               temperature, a spray nozzle temperature, an atomizing air temperature, a spray liquid line                        
               temperature, a coating zone temperature, a fluidizing gas flow, and an atomizing gas pressure [as                 
               required by the appealed claims]” (brief, page 7).   We cannot agree.                                             
                      Like the examiner, we consider the applied prior art to evince that the afore-quoted                       
               parameters are recognized in this art as being result-effective variables.  In this regard, see                   
               particularly the Glatt reference (e.g., see lines 4-9 in column 6, lines 24-35 in column 6, and lines             


                                                                                                                                
               1   On page 6 of the brief, the appellants state that “[c]laims 13-18 and 26-30 stand and [sic] fall together.”   
               Consistent with this statement, the argument in the brief is advanced by the appellants against all appealed claims as
               a group and against both of the above noted rejections together.  Therefore, in considering the appellants’ argument,
               we will focus on representative independent claim 13 with which all other claims on appeal will stand or fall.    

                                                               3                                                                 



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007