Appeal No. 1995-2659
Application 07/896,705
discontinuous liquid phase” (examiner’s answer, p. 7) and
therefore teaches, inherently, the claimed invention. We
disagree, for three reasons.
First, assuming for arguments’ sake that the
examiner is correct, the claims nevertheless call for a
“substantial absence of a continuous liquid phase”. Such
a condition could not exist if a major portion of the
liquid remained in
a continuous phase. Therefore, even if Pratt did create
“at least some discontinuous liquid phase”, the claims
preclude it.
Second, the passage that the examiner (examiner’s
answer, p. 4) relies upon for suggesting an inherent
relationship between aeration and a resulting partially
discontinuous liquid phase actually teaches aeration in
combination with agitation: “aeration and agitation
continued throughout the [process]” (column 4, line 8).
Agitation has an equally important impact on the liquid
phase. Furthermore, we can find no indication that Pratt
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007