Appeal No. 2000-1386
Application No. 09/078,477
Secondly, appellants improperly attempt to overcome the
rejection by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is based on a combined teaching. See In re Young, 403
F.2d 754, 757, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968). In this case, we
conclude that the Examiner has established the requisite motivation
to utilize Huttlin’s rotary drum process in Moore’s process of
coating granules with a polymer coating3, i.e., “the expectation
that the rotary drum would effectively coat the granules of Moore,
as it had in Huttlin” (Examiner’s Answer, page 4).
Finally, contrary to appellants’ assertion, Huttlin does, in
fact, teach the use of “a plurality of nozzles 42” for application
of the coating to the granular material. Column 4, line 43.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 16, which
appellants have failed to rebut.
Claims 17-19
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and includes the further
limitation that the first and second coating components are applied
by injecting the coating components into the cascading material at
the top moving layer. We find that this limitation fails to
3
3See Moore, column 7, lines 4-47, for a discussion of the
polymer coating.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007