Appeal 2006-2610
Application 10/362,136
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Shine, like Appellants, discloses a method of impregnating a carrier
matrix with a solid or liquid compound by utilizing compressed gas over a
period of about two hours. The compressed gas then undergoes an abrupt
release of pressure (col. 4, l. 8 and 9; col. 6, ll. 20 and 33-40). As
recognized by the Examiner, Shine does not expressly teach the application
of another pressure cycle after the abrupt release of pressure. However, we
fully concur with the Examiner that it would have been prima facie obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the two-hour application of
pressure disclosed by Shine into two consecutive one-hour sessions. As
explained by the Examiner, it has generally been held that splitting one
process step into two steps is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary
skill in the art when the processes are substantially the same in terms of
function and result. Moreover, as noted by the Examiner, Shine refers to
Redding which discloses numerous cycles of pressure changes to control the
size of the microcapsule produced. Murthy also teaches that the thickness of
a coating can be controlled by employing two or more pressure cycles
(col. 5, ll. 28-30). Accordingly, based on the state of the prior art, we find
no error in the Examiner's legal conclusion that the claimed method of
impregnating a matrix with a solid or liquid compound by using
unsymmetrical pulsations of pressurized gas would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007