Appeal No. 2004-2015 Page 5
Application No. 09/800,547
throughput rates (Brief, p. 10). None of these parameters represent a requirement in the process
of claim 1.
Appellants further argue that Trainor fails to teach the claimed gap adjustability. But
Trainor indicates that the rotor and stator are adjustable (Trainor, col. 6, ll. 27-29). Moreover,
the fact that the gap is adjustable in particular increments does not translate into a limitation on
the process. There is no affirmative requirement that the gap be so adjusted.
With regard to Ross, Appellants merely argue, in essence, that this reference does not
describe the process of the claim (Brief, p. 10). That argument is not persuasive because it does
not address the capacity in which the references were applied. The Examiner applied Trainor to
show that a process of making dressing by mixing an oil and an aqueous emulsifier phase in a
pre-mix tank followed by passing the emulsion through a stator and rotor type in-line mixer was
known in the art. The Examiner then provided evidence that the specifics of the stator and rotor
apparatus were also known in the art. The Examiner also provided a reason why one of ordinary
skill in the art would have used the conventional rotor and stator apparatus known in the art in
the process of Trainor and concluded that the process of claim 1 would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art. Such a rationale supports a conclusion of obviousness. Appellants
have not convinced us of any factual or legal error on the part of the Examiner.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no arguments upon objective evidence of
non-obviousness such as unexpected results. We conclude that the Examiner has established a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007