Appeal No. 2001-2124
Application No. 09/416,914
the rejections of claims 13 and 15 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
As an initial matter, it is the appellant’s position that, “[c]laims 1-13 should be
considered together.” Claims 14 through 17 are to be considered separately. See Brief,
page 4. As noted in our Remand To The Examiner, however, “each of the rejections will be
considered separately. However, the patentability of individual claims within each group of
rejected claims will not be considered.” See Remand To The Examiner, page 3.
Accordingly, we select claims 1, 8, 13, 14 and 17 as representative of the claimed subject
matter and limit our consideration thereto. See 37 CFR §1.192(c)(7) (2000).
The Rejection under §102(b)
It is the appellant’s position that Umeya fails to anticipate claim 14 as Umeya, “teach
mixing the same size core particles with particles called ‘ultrafines’ that are 0.005 to 0.5
microns in size. These ‘ultrafines’ are much larger than the nanometer size particles required
by claim 14.” See Brief, page 5. We disagree with the appellant’s conclusion.
Umeya is directed to coated particles of inorganic materials. See column 1, lines
12-17 and 59-62. We find that the ultrafines of the inorganic material are combined with
core particles in a vapor phase. See column 2, lines 1-5 and each of the examples. It is
evident that no water is present in the combination and we conclude that the particles are
mixed while dry. Umeya teaches that “particles of the core material have usually an average
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007