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high throughputs as those of the inventive equipment, but Appellants do not
cite to the portion of the Specification including this statement.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