Ex parte DUFFIN - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1996-0708                                       Page 3           
          Application No. 08/241,888                                                  


          (3) pelletizing the dehydrated concentrate precursor to                     
          produce a pellet with a moisture content below 0.2% by weight.              

               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner are:                                                               
          Touval                        3,892,667                Jul.  1,             
          1975                                                                        
          Sandler                       4,298,517                Nov.  3,             
          1981                                                                        
          Breitenfellner et al.         5,034,439                Jul. 23,             
          1991                                                                        
          (Breitenfellner)                                                            
               The prior art references at page 5 of the specification                
          newly relied upon by the Board are:                                         
          Miyashita et al.              4,786,663                Nov. 22,             
          1988                                                                        
          (Miyashita)                                                                 
          Hanabusa                      5,258,434                Nov.  2,             
          1993                                                                        
                                                  (Filed Jan. 22, 1987)               
               Claims 1 through 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Touval,                    
          Breitenfellner and Sandler.                                                 
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have reviewed              
          the specification, claims and prior art, including all of the               
          arguments advanced by both the examiner and appellants in                   







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007