Ex parte DALUISE - Page 3

          Appeal No. 1997-2275                                                        
          Application No. 08/390,281                                                  

               For the reasons set forth below, this rejection cannot be              
               In the paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5 of the answer,                 
          the examiner expresses his basic position as follows:                       
                    It is the Examiner’s position that, based on the                  
               combined teachings of Coke, Fritz, and Sorathia, it                    
               would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in                    
               the art to have utilized the nozzle of Fritz to                        
               apply the mixture of Coke because Coke wants to wet                    
               particles with a binder and apply them to a                            
               substrate, Sorathia teaches that it is advantageous                    
               to supply particles and a binder separately to a                       
               substrate in order to avoid clogging of spray                          
               equipment, and Fritz teaches a suitable nozzle which                   
               can be used to wet particles with a binder which                       
               does not pre-mix the materials.  It is the                             
               Examiner’s position that one having ordinary skill                     
               in the art would recognize (based on the Sorathia                      
               teachings) that by applying the rubber/latex mixture                   
               of Coke without premixing (i.e., using the Fritz                       
               nozzle) one would obtain an advantageous result, no                    
               clogging of the spray equipment.  Furthermore, it is                   
               the Examiner’s position that there would have been a                   
               reasonable expectation by one having ordinary skill                    
               that the nozzle of Fritz, when utilized to spray the                   
               rubber coatings of Coke, would have provided results                   
               similar to those obtained by Coke, i.e., the final                     
               product would be the same.                                             
               Notwithstanding a careful consideration of the examiner’s              
          position, we agree with the appellant that the here applied                 
          references would not have suggested the method defined by the               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007