Appeal No. 2000-1386
Application No. 09/078,477
The examiner relies on Moore for a teaching of “a process of
coating granules with a polymer coating, where the polymer is
formed by first introducing first and second reactive materials to
the granules and reacting them to form the polymer coating on the
granules, where the first and second reactive material are applied
separately and simultaneously.” Examiner’s Answer, page 4
(citations omitted). The examiner further relies on Moore for a
teaching “that the coating of the granules can be performed by any
number of processes, including a rotary drum.” Id.
The examiner concedes that Moore does not disclose applying
the coating materials to a cascading flow of granules using a
rotary drum, but maintains that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to have used the rotary drum process
of Huttlin in order to simultaneously and separately inject the
first and second coating materials into a cascading flow of
granules. Id. Further, the examiner maintains that it would have
been obvious to have collected and used the coating granules as it
is well known and conventional in the art to do so. Id.
Claim 7
Having found claim 7 obvious in view of Huttlin, we need not
further consider the present rejection with respect to this claim.
Claim 16
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007