Appeal No. 1999-0400
Application No. 08/316,938
45 rpm. Although this speed cannot be converted to meters per
second (m/s) for comparison with the speed range set forth in
claim 15 without additional information, its disclosure
demonstrates a recognition by Sipos that the rotational speed
of the spheronizing container is a factor contributing to the
quality of the spheronized agglomerates. Here again, the
appellants have not made any showing that the claimed range
achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art (see In
re Woodruff, supra).
VII. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4 as being
unpatentable over Sipos in view of Szczesny, Edmonds, Bremer,
Gibson, Moriya and Watson
We shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 4 as being unpatentable over Sipos in view of
Szczesny, Edmonds, Bremer, Gibson, Moriya and Watson since this
claim stands or falls with claim 1.
VIII. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 13 as being
unpatentable over Sipos in view of Szczesny, Edmonds, Bremer
and Good
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007