Appeal No. 1999-0400
Application No. 08/316,938
VI. The standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 3,
5, 6, 14/2 and 15 as being unpatentable over Sipos in view of
Szczesny, Edmonds, Bremer and Gibson
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over
Sipos in view of Szczesny, Edmonds, Bremer and Gibson since
these claims stand or fall with parent claim 1.
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 14/2, which stands or falls alone, as being
unpatentable over Sipos in view of Szczesny, Edmonds, Bremer
and Gibson for the reasons expressed above in connection with
claim 14/1.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 15, which stands or falls alone, as being
unpatentable over Sipos in view of Szczesny, Edmonds, Bremer
and Gibson.
As indicated above, claim 15 depends from claim 1 via
claim 2 and requires the rotatable spheronizing container set
forth in claim 2 to rotate at a periphery speed of from about
0.5 to 1.0 m/s. Sipos’ spheronizing container rotates at 15 to
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007