Ex parte KAMIYAMA et al. - Page 4




                   Appeal No. 1996-2015                                                                                                                           
                   Application No. 08/181,539                                                                                                                     


                            Claims 20-22 and 24-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                                                
                   Lee in view of China or Eppenbach ‘288 in view of Eppenbach ‘178.     We affirm.       3                                                       



                            In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the appellants’                                       

                   specification and claims and to the respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.                                       

                   We make reference to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 26, mailed                                                                               

                   June 13, 1995) for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection and to the appellants’ brief                                           

                   (Paper No. 25, filed March 15, 1995) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                                               

                                                                     THE INVENTION                                                                                

                            Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an apparatus for producing micron-sized particles                                        

                   having a narrow size distribution range by suspension polymerization of a monomeric composition.  The                                          

                   apparatus comprises (a) independent first and second vessels for supplying a disperse phase                                                    

                   component containing the monomeric composition and a continuous phase component comprising a                                                   

                   medium, respectively, through (b) associated independent passageways directly into a uniform shear                                             

                   force generating field of a disperser where they contact each other for the first time to form a                                               

                            3By an apparently inadvertent error on the examiner’s part, claims 27, 30 and 31 have not been listed in the                          
                   statement of the rejection on page 3 of the answer.  It is quite clear, however, that claims 27, 30 and 31 should be                           
                   included in the rejection since these claims were listed in the statement of this rejection on page 2 of the final Office                      
                   action mailed September 15, 1994 (Paper No. 21).  Moreover, the appellants in their brief have considered claims 27,                           
                   30 and 31 to be included in the above noted prior art rejection (e.g., see pages 1 and 9).  Under these circumstances,                         
                   we also consider claims 27, 30 and 31 to be included in this rejection and further consider the examiner’s                                     
                   aforementioned error to be harmless.                                                                                                           
                                                                              - 4 -                                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007