Appeal 2007-0414
Application 10/691,113
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth by Appellants,
claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 15-19 stand or fall together with claim 1,
whereas claims 21-37 stand or fall together with claim 21.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we find that the Examiner’s rejections are supported
by the prior art evidence relied upon and, therefore, well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer.
We consider first the Examiner’s § 102 rejection over Johnson. We
agree with the Examiner that Johnson fairly describes a method and
apparatus for forming particles with a supercritical fluid within the meaning
of § 102. We find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Johnson discloses
providing a 1st solution with dissolved solute (paragraphs 34
and 36), providing an antisolvent that may be supercritical
carbon dioxide (paragraphs 58 and 63), flowing the fluids
through a chamber or vessel containing a rotor to mix
(paragraph 41) and mixing in the annular space between rotor
and vessel wall to collect precipitated particles (paragraph[s] 41
and 58).
(Answer 4, third para.). Appellants argue that Figure 1 of Johnson does not
include a rotating rotor, but Appellants concede that Johnson expressly
teaches that the mixing vessel could be a rotor stator mixer (para. [0041]).
Also, as pointed out by the Examiner, Johnson discloses that “[t]he streams
are forced to the walls of the mixing vessel by centripetal forces” thereby
fairly describing the claimed mixing zone being defined as a space between
an inner wall of the chamber and an adjacent surface of the rotating rotor
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013