Appeal 2007-2132
Application 09/761,041
this reason, we hereby summarily sustain the Examiner’s § 112, 2nd ¶,
rejection of all appealed claims.
The § 112, 1st ¶ , Rejection
On page 4 of the Brief, the Appellant urges that his original disclosure
contains descriptive support for periodically regenerating PVPP. However,
as previously noted, the Examiner acknowledges descriptive support for this
aspect of the here-claimed invention. As specifically explained by the
Examiner, the rejection under consideration is based on the Examiner’s
determination that no descriptive support exists for the aspect of the
claim 10 invention which requires periodically regenerating “fresh” PVPP.
This is made clear by the Examiner’s previously quoted statement that,
“[w]hile the specification refers to regenerating PVPP, there is no mention
of ‘fresh PVPP’” (Answer 3).
The Brief contains no discussion at all of the claim 10 phrase “fresh
PVPP” or descriptive support therefor. Under this circumstance, the
Examiner’s § 112, 1st ¶, rejection must be regarded as unchallenged on the
record of this appeal. We hereby sustain, therefore, this rejection of all
appealed claims.
The § 103 Rejection Based on Westermann Alone
Westermann discloses a continuous process for stabilizing beer by
passing the entire flow of beer through line 4 and into a vessel 1 containing a
fluidized bed of PVPP particles from which the main flow of beer exits via
line 5 (figure 1; col. 1, ll. 38-45; col. 2, ll. 15-47). A portion of PVPP and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013