Appeal 2007-0414
Application 10/691,113
through which the liquid flows.(para. [0041]). Hence, we find no merit in
Appellants’ argument that “[w]hile the batch flash mixer of Johnson et al.
does contain a rotating mechanical agitator or rotor disposed in a mixing
vessel, the non-process solvent does not flow through the mixing vessel as
required by the claimed method” (principal Br. 6, penultimate para.).
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that paragraph
[0063] of Johnson only relates to using supercritical fluid extraction for post
treatment processes (see principal Br. 7). Rather, Johnson clearly teaches
that although supercritical fluid extraction typically occurs after nanoparticle
formation, it can also be employed “during the nanoparticle formation
process” (para. [0063], last sentence).
Appellants also maintain that Johnson does not disclose the claim 9
recitation that the first and second solution ports are coaxial. However, we
concur with the Examiner that paragraph 0045 of Johnson teaches that the
mixer can include multiple inlet tubes for introducing a plurality of streams
and that, in one embodiment, “the fluid streams can be directed towards each
other to substantially cause them to collide and mix.” In our view, this
disclosure fairly describes the claimed coaxial ports. As for the claim 14
recitation that the process solvent could be an emulsion, Johnson fairly
describes as much by disclosing the addition of emulsifiers to the process
solvent (para. [0064], l. 7).
Although Appellants agree that Johnson discloses “forming coated
additive target molecules that could have a core-shell configuration,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013