Appeal No. 95-3861
Application No. 08/115,453
(1) Claims 24 through 29 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Eppenberger (Figures 1 and 2);
(2) Claims 30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Eppenberger (Figures 1 and 2) in view of Braibanti
(Figure 2A).
We reverse each of the foregoing rejections. Although
the claimed subject matter is limited to the apparatus
illustrated in Figures 1, 2 and 3 and described at pages 12-15
of the specification or "equivalents thereof", the examiner
has not explained why such specific apparatus recited in the
claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
view of the applied prior art. The examiner has not supplied
any evidence or explanation to demonstrate why the employment
of the specific structures corresponding to the two shaft
kneading means, homogenizing and pressure applying means and
transferring means as illustrated in Figures 1, 2 and 3 would
have been suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. The
examiner, for instance, has not established that the claimed
specific structures are known to have the functions discovered
by appellants. Nor has the examiner explained why using the
combination of such specific structures would be beneficial to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007