Appeal No. 1999-0400
Application No. 08/316,938
particularly relevant to the powder treatment method disclosed
by Edwards. Thus, Szczesny is, at best, superfluous to the
examiner’s reference combination.
In view of the foregoing, we shall sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 7, 8 and 31/1
which stand or fall therewith, as being unpatentable over
Edwards in view of Szczesny, Edmonds and Bremer.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and
15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Edwards in view of Szczesny, Edmonds, Bremer
and Gibson
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over Edwards in
view of Szczesny, Edmonds, Bremer and Gibson since these claims
stand or fall with claim 1.
Claim 15, which stands or falls alone, depends from claim
1 via claim 2 and requires the rotatable spheronizing container
recited in claim 2 to rotate at a periphery speed of from about
0.5 to 1.0 m/s. While the underlying specification (see page
7) states that this range of speeds is preferred, it does not
indicate that this parameter, in and of itself, produces
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007