Ex Parte Shekunov et al - Page 5



                 Appeal 2007-0414                                                                                       
                 Application 10/691,113                                                                                 

                 [Appellant contends] that the manner in which Johnson et al. teach the                                 
                 formation of such coated additive target molecules does not anticipate                                 
                 claims 16 and 21-37” (principal Br. 11, second para.).  Appellants maintain                            
                 that the additive target molecule of Johnson is mixed with the amphiphilic                             
                 copolymer in the process solvent prior to precipitation, but Johnson does not                          
                 teach that “the additive target molecule and the amphiphilic copolymer                                 
                 should be headed into a mixing zone as separate solution streams as                                    
                 claimed” (id.).  However, as pointed out by the Examiner, paragraph [0045]                             
                 of Johnson expressly states that “[i]n one embodiment of the invention,                                
                 amphiphilic copolymer and additive target molecule are introduced into the                             
                 mixing vessel via different solvent streams” (emphasis added).                                         
                 Consequently, we find that this argument of Appellants is also without merit.                          
                        In essence, it is our finding that although Johnson does not provide a                          
                 figure or example which describes all the features of the claimed process, we                          
                 agree with the Examiner that Johnson, as a whole, fairly describes the                                 
                 claimed method within the meaning of § 102.                                                            
                        As for the § 103 rejection of claim 6 over Johnson in view of Holl, we                          
                 fully concur with the Examiner that Holl evidences the obviousness of                                  
                 spacing the surface of the rotating rotor at a distance of 0.1 mm to about                             
                 2.5 mm from the inner wall of the chamber.   Appellants have not refuted the                           
                 Examiner’s finding that such spacing was known in the art to avoid                                     
                 introducing Taylor vortices in order to facilitate a more complete, uniform                            
                 mixing of the introduced solutions (see Answer 7, last sentence).  We also                             

                                                           5                                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013