Appeal No. 96-3845
Application No. 08/209,260
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We do not sustain the examiner’s respective rejections of
appellant’s claims under 35 USC §103.
At the outset, this panel of the board points out that we
fully appreciate the examiner’s point of view as expressed in the
answer. However, for the reasons articulated, infra, we are of
the opinion that the evidence before us does not support a
conclusion of obviousness relative to the claimed subject matter.
The rejection of claim 21
Simply stated, it is our view that the Feton brochure would
not have been suggestive of the capsule handling method of claim
21. Setting aside appellant’s own disclosure, a review of the
English language portion of the Feton document and related
pictorial portions (Figures A, B, and 1 through 8) does not
reveal to us any suggestion for effecting a method wherein first
and second opener/encapsulater components, associated with “a”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007