Appeal No. 1999-0400
Application No. 08/316,938
Edmonds and Bremer. Here again, Szczesny is, at best,
superfluous to the examiner’s reference combination.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claim 1, and claims 7, 8, 12 and 31/1 which stand
or fall therewith, as being unpatentable over Sipos in view of
Szczesny, Edmonds and Bremer.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 14/1, which stands alone, as being
unpatentable over Sipos in view of Szczesny, Edmonds and
Bremer.
Claim 14/1 requires the spheronization step recited in
parent claim 1 to be performed for about 2 to 20 minutes.
While the underlying specification (see page 7) states that
this time range is preferred, it does not indicate that this
parameter, in and of itself, produces optimal agglomerate
characteristics as urged by the appellants (see page 18 in the
main brief). In any event, Sipos discloses a spheronizing step
time range of 5 to 10 minutes which falls squarely within the
range set forth in claim 14.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007