Page 3
Appeal Number: 2005-2193
Application Number: 09/385,405
3. Claims 71-73, 75-81, and 83 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Schmidt;2
4. Claims 71-73, 75-81, and 83 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schmidt;3 and
5. Claims 74 and 82 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Schmidt and Dutre.
We have considered the issues as developed in the Brief filed June 14, 2004. Appellant
states that the claims stand or fall together (Brief 10). Therefore, for each rejection we select a
single representative claim to review the issues on appeal. We sustain the rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and § 103(a) for the reasons provided by the Examiner. We do not sustain
the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Because our reasoning with regard to the prior art rejections illuminates the reasoning
with regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, we begin our discussion with the prior
art rejections. Namely, we begin with the rejections over Schmidt. As Appellant addresses the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections together, so shall we.
Schmidt is Appellant’s prior patent and it is directed to recycling gelatin-based
encapsulation waste material. Appellant argues that the method of Schmidt and that of the
present application “are similar except that [Schmidt] does not require a waste gelatin material
which must have a first component as defined herein.” (Brief 19). According to Appellant, “the
2 Appellant lists claims 71-83 as rejected. The error is harmless.
3 Appellant again lists the claims rejected as 71-83. Again, the error is harmless.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007