Appeal No. 1996-2015
Application No. 08/181,539
in the shear force generating field pass through a gap at the periphery of the rotors prior to exiting the
mixer.
In regard to the additional claim limitations argued by appellants on page 16 of the brief: The
asperities of claims 20 and 25 (which provide an uneven, rough working surface) and the substantially
smooth working surface(s) of claims 21 and 26 are suggested by the disclosure in Eppenbach ‘178 that
while plain or smooth flat surfaces are satisfactory for many applications, use of depressions on a
working surface to provide supplemental shearing means provides more effective homogenization and
emulsification (page 1, lines 24-28; page 2, lines 26-40) as well as the disclosure of smooth working
surfaces in China (page 2, lines 71-75). Independently controlling the flow of materials into the shear
force generating field as recited in claims 22 and 27 is suggested by the control valves 42-44 of Lee
(col. 6, lines 52-57 and 64-67) and by optional screw valves 158-161 in China (page 2, lines 99-120).
Therefore, we agree with the examiner that all the structural limitations of claims 20-22 and 24-
33 would have been prima facie obvious in view of the combined disclosures of Lee, China and
Eppenbach ‘178.
Where as here, the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness is met by the
examiner, the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shifts to appellants.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007