Appeal No. 1996-2015
Application No. 08/181,539
Appellants argue that the combination of China and Lee does not teach or suggest
independently supplying the disperse and continuous phases such that they contact each other for the
first time in a uniform shear force generating field (brief, pages 15-16). We disagree. China’s mixer
comprises separate input pipes 142 which independently feed into separate hollow shafts 125 and 126
such that the two feeds contact each other directly for the first time in the space between the working
surfaces 149 and 156 of adjacent rotors, i.e., in the shear force generating field. Further, the close
adjacency of the working surfaces in China (page 1, lines 12-13; page 2, lines 91-92; Figs. 1-9)
reasonably appears to suggest a uniform shear force generating field. As to the claimed gap and space
ranges recited in claims 24, 28, 29, 30 and 32, we agree with the examiner (answer, pages 5-6) that
the explicit suggestions to use “closely adjacent surfaces” in China (page 1, lines 13-14; page 3, line
104) and a “narrow clearance” or “minute clearance” in Eppenbach ‘178 (page 1, line 25; page 2, lines
76-77) would have suggested the claimed gap limitations to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellants
have not challenged the examiner’s position that the claimed gap and spacing ranges are conventional in
the art (answer, page 7). As set forth in In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219
(CCPA 1980), it is normally within the skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable. Here, both
China and Eppenbach ‘178 suggest that the amount of clearance between working surfaces combines
with centrifugal forces and/or speed to facilitate homogenization and emulsification. Finally, Figs. 1 and
4 in China reasonably appear to suggest embodiments wherein substantially all of the dispersion formed
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007