Appeal No. 2000-1386
Application No. 09/078,477
use the coated granules produced in the Huttlin process to achieve
the invention as claimed. Id. at pages 3-4.
Appellants concede that Huttlin teaches a body of granular
material 44 which is being rotated and that “a solvent vapor is
sprayed by nozzle 42 onto the material 44 just in front of the
immersed body 46 and/or is introduced to the material underneath
from the inlet opening 74.” Id. at page 5 (emphasis added).
However, Appellants urge that the claimed invention is not obvious
because
there is no disclosure of having a rotating granular material
to provide a cascading flow of the rotating granular material
and injecting a coating component into the top surface of this
cascading flow. At best, the coating material in Huttlin is
flushed up into the granular material.
Appeal Brief, page 6 (emphasis added).
In deciding patentability issues under 35 U.S.C. § 103
“[a]nalysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the
invention claimed?” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d
1561, 1567-68, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 41
U.S. 1052 (1987). In order to determine what is claimed, we must
first determine the meaning of the following claim terms:
1. cascading flow;
2. top moving layer; and
3. injecting
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007