Appeal No. 95-1641
Application No. 07/825,927
no reasonable basis in the record for concluding that single
stage crystallization processes involving materially different
reaction conditions and seeds encompassed by appellants’
claims 1 and 8 would behave as a class in the same manner as
the specific two stage crystallization process shown in the
specification. See In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ
356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
With respect to apparatus claim 15, the examiner states
(Answer, pages 3 and 4):
Witte, et al. teach a continuously working
crystallizer in the shape of an oblong vessel.
The crystallizer comprises both mixing and
cooling means. The mixing means are described
as scrapers having the dual function of
preventing crystals from adhering to the cooling
surface and of stirring the liquid enclosed
between two discs. See col. 2, line 1 to col.
5, line 3 of Witte, et al. Although Witte, et
al. do not disclose any dimensions or
characteristics of the crystallizer, as claimed
by Appellants, such dimensions are deemed
apparatus optimizations based upon the available
space (e.g., a warehouse) in which the apparatus
can be assembled and employed. Further, the
characteristics are deemed apparatus
optimizations based on the desired degree of
crystallization.
In response, appellants only argue (Brief, page 17) that:
Claim 15 recites "an effective means for
mixing." Saturated fructose solutions are quite
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007