Appeal No. 1999-0337
Application 08/323,839
chemicals and/or fillers (claim 16) into each of a plurality
of stock lines or flows. For the reasons explained above, the
combined teachings of Beck and Booth would not have suggested
a method embodying this feature. Therefore, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 6,
7 and 16 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of Booth.
Finally, claim 4 depends from claim 3 and claim 8 depends
from claim 7. Since Justus and Schacht fail to overcome the
above noted deficiencies of the basic Beck-Booth combination
with respect to the subject matter recited in claims 3 and 7,
we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 4 and 8 as being unpatentable over Beck in view of
Booth, Justus and Schacht.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through
17 is affirmed with respect to claims 5, 9, 11, 13 and 15, and
reversed with respect to claims 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 10,
12, 14, 16 and 17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007