Appeal No. 2002-0139 Page 3
Application No. 08/991,572
a controller for controlling said predetermined
volume rates and said predetermined speed so as to fill
only part of said helical spaces by said solids and
said first and second agents to segregate said first
agent; and
at least one lateral opening in said extruder
barrel for said first agent to escape;
wherein a portion of said screw downstream of said
at least one lateral opening has a sufficient number of
counter-threads to cause said oily phase containing
said pigment solids to jam.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Higuchi et al. (Higuchi) 4,474,473 Oct. 02, 1984
Wesley et al. (Wesley) 4,789,507 Dec. 06, 1988
Claims 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Higuchi in view of Wesley.
We refer to the briefs and to the answer for the opposing
viewpoints expressed by appellant and by the examiner concerning
the above-noted rejection.
OPINION
Upon careful review of the entire record including the
respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellant that the examiner has
failed to carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007