Ex Parte Maza et al - Page 10

                Appeal 2007-1678                                                                             
                Application 09/800,547                                                                       

                argument is not specific enough to allow us to determine whether the                         
                argument is directed to a specific limitation of another claim.                              
                      With respect to high throughput, Appellants provide no evidence in                     
                support of the statement that “Trainor ‘084 cannot achieve the high                          
                throughput rates with its colloid mill.”  (Br. 10)  Appellants argue that the                
                Specification states it is impossible for colloid mills to achieve the same                  
                high throughputs as those of the inventive equipment, but Appellants do not                  
                cite to the portion of the Specification including this statement.  Therefore,               
                the statement is unsupported by evidence.                                                    
                      Moreover, Trainor suggests that throughput may vary, smaller sized                     
                processes requiring less throughput than larger processes (FF 4).  The                       
                throughput depends on the quantity of dressing one seeks to produce.  For                    
                instance, a pilot plant will have a lesser throughput than a commercial                      
                operation.  One of ordinary skill in the art would size the equipment                        
                accordingly.  Appellants themselves disclose using the rotor/stator                          
                arrangement of Ross (Specification 7:7-14).  Appellants do not disclose                      
                making any particular adjustments to the rotor/stator of Ross to obtain the                  
                claimed throughput, therefore, it follows that one of ordinary skill in art of               
                dressing production would have been capable of using the Ross rotor/stator                   
                at the claimed throughput.                                                                   
                      Appellants state that the invention is further defined by the dependent                
                claims (Br. 9).  They, however, do not advance any sufficiently specific                     
                arguments highlighting how the Examiner erred in rejecting the dependent                     
                claims that would allow us to review the rejection with regard to those                      
                claims.                                                                                      


                                                     10                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013