Appeal No. 1999-0400
Application No. 08/316,938
the agglomerate-forming sieve to have the form of a U-shaped
trough.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) rejection of claim 27, and claims 25, 26, 28 and 31/27
which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Sipos in
view of Edmonds.
XIV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 29 as being
unpatentable over Sipos in view of Edmonds and Good
The basic combination of Sipos and Edmonds is not
responsive to the limitation in claim 29 requiring the
agglomerate-forming sieve to have the form of a U-shaped
trough. Good, applied for its alleged disclosure of multiple
spheronizing steps, does not remedy this situation.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 29 as being unpatentable over Sipos
in view of Edmonds and Good.
SUMMARY
In accordance with the above treatment of the various
rejections on appeal, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 through 8, 12 through 15, 24 through 29 and 31 is
22
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007