Appeal No. 1996-2015
Application No. 08/181,539
independent claims 28 and 32 require that substantially all of the dispersion must pass through the
gap defined by the second and fourth surfaces after being dispersed in the uniform shear force
generating field. The examiner first states that the claimed second and fourth surfaces, which define the
recited “gap” 78, corresponded to housing 72 and gear 70 in Lee, respectively, and then refers to col.
7, lines 46-50 in Lee for showing that all the mixing constituents pass through a defined mixing gap
before exiting the mixer (answer, page 4, para. 1). Thus, it appears that the examiner is now equating
mixing zone 76 with the “gap” recited in claims 29 and 32. However, mixing zone 76 is not defined by
the second and fourth surfaces, i.e., by housing 72 and gear 70. Therefore, the examiner’s position is
not well taken. Lastly, the examiner has not pointed out and we do not find where either Eppenbach
‘288 or ‘178 makes up for this deficiency.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness and reverse the rejection of claims 20-22 and 24-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lee in
view of Eppenbach ‘288 in view of Eppenbach ‘178.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner (I) to reject claims 20-22 and 24-33 under
- 13 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007