Appeal No. 97-2359
Application 07/894,260
276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Appellants argue that the examiner has not pointed to the
use of grinding alone to obtain a substantially mono-dispersed
particle size (brief, page 14). We are not convinced by this
argument because at the time of appellants’ invention,
conventional particle formation techniques were capable of
producing particles which can be considered to have a
“substantially mono-dispersed particle size”. Czerlinski, for
example, teaches that grinding, chemical precipitation, and
fractionation were known methods in the art for obtaining
uniform particle sizes (col. 3, line 57 - col. 4, line 60).
For the above reasons, we conclude, based on the
preponderance of the evidence and argument in the record, that
the invention recited in appellants’ claims 62-64 would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.2
2A discussion of Lee ‘904 and Lee ‘492 is not necessary
to our decision.
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007