Appeal 2007-0652
Application 10/320,028
formulated. Also, by adding the variants downstream from the
homogenizing blender, "[t]he process is intended to protect temperature and
shear sensitive additives such as fragrances and organic colorants" (page 4,
Specification, para. [0008]).
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 1-10, 12, and 13 over Lorenzi in view of Bechtel, Cornelis,
Kacher, Phallen, and Billet,
(b) claim 14 over Lorenzi in view of Bechtel, Cornelis, Kacher,
Phallen, and Pfening,
(c) claims 15, 17-22, 24, and 25 over Lorenzi in view of Bechtel,
Cornelis, Phallen, and Billet,
(d) claim 16 over Lorenzi in view Bechtel, Cornelis, Phallen, Billet,
and Kacher, and
(e) claim 23 over Lorenzi in view of Bechtel, Cornelis, Phallen, and
Pfening.
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 1-10, 12, and
13 as a group, or for claims 15, 17-22, 24, and 25 as a group. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 1-10, 12, and 13 stands or falls together, as does the
rejection of claims 15, 17-22, 24, and 25.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that the claimed
subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner's rejections for essentially those reasons expressed
in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013