Appeal No. 96-3845
Application No. 08/209,260
capsules by “a” loader component to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Further, we note that the particular structural
configuration of Feton is expressly disclosed as being dedicated
to “one single capsule size”. Of course, we certainly appreciate
that the respective teachings of Norelli, Inman, and Austin
address apparatus modification to handle capsules of different
sizes. However, it must also be kept in mind that each of the
latter teachings address an apparatus structural different from
that found in the Feton brochure. From our standpoint, the
proposed modification of Feton would not have been suggested to
an artisan by the applied teachings since it would have
necessitated an entire reworking thereof, contrary to the single
capsule size teaching thereof, and particularly since the
secondary references each reflect distinctly different structural
apparatus relative to the Feton loading device and capsule
filling machine.
Similarly, we are of the view that the method of independent
claim 3 would not have been obvious, i.e., a method requiring an
opener/encapsulater component including a second capsule
receiving plate displaceable with respect to a first capsule
receiving plate, with the opener/encapsulater being capable of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007