Appeal No. 1998-1722
Application No. 08/527,018
Travenol Laboratories,952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1284-85
(Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ
569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1089, 197 USPQ
601, 607 (CCPA 1978).
The appellants urge that none of the cited references teach
a mixer including “at least one conveyor element that is not
located directly under a feed port of the mixer.” (Appeal
brief, page 12.) We disagree. As pointed out by the examiner
(Oct. 6, 2003 letter), the present specification describes the
use of the same mixer as described in Rose (I).
Summary
In summary, we affirm the examiner’s rejections under: (i)
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of appealed claims 1 through 3, 5, 10, and 13
as anticipated by Song and (ii) 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed
claims 16 through 20 as unpatentable over Song in view of Rose I
and Rose II. We reverse, however, the examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of appealed claims 4, 6 through 9, 11,
12, 14, and 15 as anticipated by Song.
The decision of the examiner is therefore affirmed in part.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007