Appeal No. 1998-1668
Application No. 08/469,670
It cannot be gainsaid that the patented claims which form
the basis of the double patenting rejection do not specifically
recite a vertical fluid bed reactor, nor do the claims recite
introducing the precursor into and removing the product fibril
from a lower part of the reactor. However, since a vertical
fluid bed reactor was known in the art as a conventional type
of fluid bed reactor, and appellants do not argue otherwise, we
agree with the examiner that it would have been obvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to practice the patented process
of U.S. '200 with a vertical fluid bed reactor. Moreover, we
find that claim 11 of the patent, when read in light of the
specification which exemplifies vertical reactors, would
suggest a vertical reactor with the feed and effluent in the
lower portion (see claim 11). Also, we concur with the
examiner that the location of the feed and effluent ports,
including at the claimed lower part of the reactor, would have
been a matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA
1975). Appellants' specification does not attach any
significance or criticality to utilizing a vertical fluid bed
reactor or situating the feed and effluent ports at the lower
part of the reactor. Nor have appellants proffered any
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007