Appeal No. 95-3313
Application 08/134,851
has in this case erroneously interpreted the claim language in
a vacuum.
Moreover, a reference must be read for all it would have
fairly taught a person having ordinary skill in the art. In
re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976).
A fair reading of Whitlock's disclosure would not have led a
person having ordinary skill in the art to the process
appellants claim. To the contrary, we find in Whitlock’s
disclosure, including all its examples, no description of or
reasonable suggestion to use a vertical agitator having both a
lower granulation zone and an upper shaping zone which
together continuously apply shearing forces greater in the
granulation zone than in the shaping zone. It is not enough
for the examiner to allege that (1) appellants’ modifications
in process and apparatus design are known in the art, (2)
Whitlock’s teaching is not constrained by the physical
arrangement he describes, and (3) other configurations fall
within the auspices of the invention (Ans., p. 3). There must
be a suggestion or motivation in the prior art to do what
appellants have done. In re Mills, 916 F.2d 680, 682, 16
USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The examiner’s finding that “Whitlock achieves the same
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007