Appeal No. 1996-2015
Application No. 08/181,539
For the above reasons, we determine that appellants have not met their burden of showing
unexpected results. Reevaluating the patentability based on the total record, we determine that the
preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of obviousness within the meaning of § 103, giving due
consideration to appellants’ arguments and evidence. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 20-22 and
24-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of China in view of Eppenbach
‘178 is affirmed.
2. Rejection of claims 20-22 and 24-33 over Lee in view of Eppenbach ‘288 in view of
Eppenbach ‘178
According to the examiner, any deficiencies of Lee are met by Eppenbach ‘288 (answer, page
5). We disagree.
All of the independent claims require first and second supply means whereby the disperse and
continuous phase components contact one another for the first time in the uniform shear force
generating field. The examiner admits that Lee does not disclose or suggest a uniform shear force
generating field (answer, page 8, first full para.). Secondly, we agree with appellants (brief, para.
bridging pages 15-16) that the disperse and continuous phase components of Lee first contact each
other prior to the shear force generating field (i.e., in the triangular space above the gears) and that
neither Eppenbach discloses or suggests premixing the two phases before entering the shear force
generating field (i.e., in Eppenbach ‘288 the inlet 44 feeds into region 45 before entering the space
between the grinding surfaces; and, in Eppenbach ‘178 the mixture is fed into the mill). Moreover,
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007