particles and a collision target to form spherical particles having an average
particle size no greater than 25 µm and a tap density ratio of from 50 - 60%.
THE REFERENCES OF RECORD
THE REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kiyota.
Claims 2 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kiyota in view of the admitted prior art and Klein.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and
the examiner and agree with the appellants that the aforementioned rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 2 and 4 through 6 is not well founded. Accordingly,
we will not sustain these rejections. We agree with the examiner that the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is well
founded. Accordingly, we will sustain these rejections.
As an initial matter, appellants state that the claims do not all stand or fall
together. Appellants argue for the separate patentability of claims 1 and 3, 2 and 5,
and 4 and 6. See Brief, pages 2 and 3. Accordingly, we select claims 1 and 2, the
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007