Appeal No. 2006-3379 Page 9
Application No. 10/393,549
claimed droplet size, citing an admission in the instant application to support this
position. Id. The Examiner asserts that the vacuum-drying or microwave drying
unit disclosed by Kigoshi in the spray-drying step meets the claim limitation “(c)
further drying said solid amorphous dispersion in a separate drying apparatus.”
Id.
Appellants state that “[t]here is no disclosure or any suggestion in
Kigoshi relating to such a further drying step in which solvent is removed to less
that [sic] 1 wt%. That is, there is nothing in Kigoshi relating to Appellants’ claim
78 step (c).” Brief, page 10. They also argue:
At Kigoshi, page 4, lines 58-59 which was cited by the Examiner, one
skilled in the art would realize that Kigoshi is not spray-drying with a
granulator because granulators cannot be used for spray drying, The
skilled person would realize that Kigoshi is describing granulating the
coated absorbent carrier disclosed in the paragraph immediately
preceding, and that the vacuum drying unit or the microwave unit are
being used for drying in the first instance since granulators do not
themselves effect drying.
Reply Brief, page 10.
We do not find Appellants’ argument persuasive. The claim requires
“further drying said solid amorphous particles in a separate drying apparatus.”
Kigoshi’s process describes “a vacuum-drying unit or microwave drying unit.”
We agree with the Examiner that this unit constitutes “a separate drying
apparatus” as required by the claim. Appellants read the claim to require that the
“further drying” step must occur in drying unit which is different from the unit in
which the spray drying is accomplished. However, we do not find this limitation
in step (c) of claim 78. Step (c) entails “further drying” the already formed solid
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007