Appeal No. 1997-3355
Application No. 08/375,456
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Biddle 3,438,797 Apr. 15, 1969
Jordan 5,389,129 Feb. 14, 1995
Appellants state in their brief (page 3) that the claims are grouped as claims
1-13 and claims 14-16, and that claims 14-16 require a process step not included in
claim 13. (Brief, page 3). Hence, we decide this appeal based upon independent
claims 1 and 14. 37 CFR § 1.192 (c) (7) (1995).
Grounds of Rejection
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being obvious over Biddle.
The examiner has also rejected claims 2, 8, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Biddle as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-16, and further in
view of Jordan.
We REVERSE.
Discussion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration
to the specification and claims, and to the respective positions as set forth by
appellant in his brief (Paper No. 11), and by the examiner in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 12).
Appellant’s claim 1 is directed to a process of providing a wax coating to
particles, comprising (a) applying an emulsion coating which is substantially free
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007