Appeal No. 2006-3379 Page 10
Application No. 10/393,549
amorphous particles in “a separate drying apparatus.” We have construed the
latter to any apparatus in which spray-dried particles are subjected to additional
drying, including the apparatus in which the spray-drying was accomplished.
Thus, the fact that “the vacuum drying unit or the microwave unit are being used
for drying in the first instance” (Reply Brief, page 10) does not foreclose them
from being used for “further drying” once the particle are formed. For this reason,
we also do not agree with Appellants that Kigoshi teaches away from additional
drying because it states that solid dispersion can be used “‘as they are’.” Reply
Brief, page 10.
Kigoshi also states in its description of the solvent method (which uses
spray-drying to remove solvent) that, “[a]s to removal of the organic solvent,
operating conditions such as the treatment temperature and time period are
ordinarily at room temperature to 150ºC and for several minutes to more than ten
hours, though they are altered depending on the compound, the polymer, the
solvent, or the like to be used.” Kigoshi, page 4, lines 34-36. It would be
reasonable for one or ordinary skill in the art to presume that longer operating
conditions, which are explicitly suggested by Kigoshi, “would be expected to
produce dried solid particles” (Answer, page 9) with “residual solvent to less than
1 wt% of said composition” as claimed. Appellants have not rebutted this or
explained why Kigoshi’s process would not have enabled a process resulting in
the claimed amount of residual solvent content. Accordingly, this rejection is
affirmed. Since separate reasons for patentability were not provided, claim 80
falls with claim 78.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007