Appeal No. 2006-3379 Page 5
Application No. 10/393,549
disintegrants and lubricants (page 4, line 39 to page 5 line 44) . . . . The additives meet
the limitations of the matrix material.” Answer, page 7, lines 7-11. For step (c) of claim
74 which requires feeding a blend of solid amorphous dispersion particles “to a melt-
congeal process to form a molten mixture,” the Examiner relies on Kigoshi’s disclosure
of melting and heat-melt-kneading methods (page 4, lines 16-17) for forming the solid
dispersion. Answer, page 7, line 16-page 8, line 10.
Appellants challenge the rejection on several grounds. First, they contend that
Kigoshi is concerned with the production of solid dispersions, and does not describe the
claimed “process for making a product in which dispersion particles are trapped within a
matrix material.” Brief, page 5. They assert that the product which is produced by their
claimed process is “a two-phase system . . . analogous to raisin bread, in which the
raisins correspond to trapped [dispersion] particles and the bread corresponds to the
matrix in which the raisins are trapped.” Id., page 4. Appellants state that Kigoshi’s
process does not result in a composition having this two-phase system. They also
argue that Kigoshi does not describe step (c) of claim 74 in which “a blend of solid
amorphous dispersions and a matrix material” are fed to a melt-congeal process. Id.,
page 6.
“[C]laim limitations can not be ignored. See Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse
Elec. Corp., 822 F.2d 1528, 1532, 3 USPQ2d 1321, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (the court
can not ignore a plethora of meaningful limitations). Patentability is determined for the
invention as claimed, with all its limitations. It is improper to delete explicit limitations
from the claim.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1480, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1435 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (Newman, dissenting opinion). In this case, the Examiner does not accord
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007