Appeal No. 95-0140
Application 08/002,528
subject matter since there is no limitation in claims 17, 18, 20
and 22 which would preclude an apparatus wherein seed particles
were introduced into the granule forming apparatus.6 Taken as a
whole, we do not find the declaration by Uhlemann to be
persuasive evidence of non-obviousness.
In view of the foregoing we will sustain the rejection of
claims 17, 18, 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning to the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
we have carefully considered the subject matter defined by this
claim. However, for reasons stated infra in our new rejection
entered under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) no reasonably
definite meaning can be ascribed to certain language appearing in
claim 24. In comparing the claimed subject matter with the
applied prior art, it is apparent to us that considerable
speculations and assumptions are necessary in order to determine
what in fact is being claimed. Since a rejection on prior art
6 It is well established that evidence of non-obviousness
must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence
is offered to support. See, e.g.,In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791,
792, 171 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1971)and In re Dill, 604 F.2d 1356, 1361,
202 USPQ 805, 808 (CCPA 1979).
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007