Appeal No. 1997-2275
Application No. 08/390,281
rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, this rejection cannot be
sustained.
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
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007