Appeal No. 1998-2642
Application No. 08/697,339
powder coating of particulate pharmaceutical tablet cores and
teaches the disadvantages of the prior art liquid coating
(col. 1, ll. 4-8; ll. 52-61). The examiner has not provided
any convincing reasons or evidence why one of ordinary skill
in the art would have used the prior art liquid coating, as
disclosed by Staniforth, instead of the dry powder coating
advanced by Staniforth as an improved process. The examiner’s
only reasoning is that “page 1, liens 22-24 Staniforth et al
[sic, col. 1, lines 22-24, of Staniforth] discloses that
liquid and dry powder application is part of the prior art.”
Answer, page 4. Even assuming arguendo that there was some
convincing reason for substituting the prior art liquid
coating process disclosed by Staniforth in the dry powder
process, the limitations of claim 12 on appeal would not have
been disclosed or taught by the reference. The examiner has
mischaracterized col. 1, ll. 22-24, of Staniforth, as being
directed to liquid or dry powder coating applications but
Staniforth actually discloses various past proposals for
electrostatically coating tablets with a liquid or dry powder
(see col. 1, ll. 22-24). The process of claim 12 on appeal
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007