Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 14, 2016

12155067 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/155,067 05/29/2008
21839 7590 04/18/2016
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
HongweiLiu
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1021238-000837 1821
EXAMINER
CHAWLA, JYOTI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ADIPDOC 1@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONGWEI LIU, GEORGIOS D. KARLES, and
SHUZHONG ZHUANG
Appeal 2014-006859
Application 12/155,067
Technology Center 1700
Before TERRY J. OWENS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and JAMES C. HOUSEL
Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 7, 9 and 14--22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Invention
The Appellants claim a capsule formation method. Claim 21 is
illustrative:
21. A method for forming capsules containing an encapsulated
core material comprising:
coextruding a core material of liquid hydrophilic
substance and a molten wax by passage through a concentric
nozzle having an inner nozzle through which the liquid
Appeal2014-006859
Application 12/155,067
hydrophilic core material passes and an outer nozzle through
which the molten wax passes,
providing said concentric nozzle while immersed in the
upper portion of a heated liquid having an upper portion and a
bottom portion selected from the group consisting of methanol,
ethanol, propanol, and combinations thereof, possessing a
decreasing temperature gradient which runs vertically from the
upper portion to the bottom portion, and providing said upper
portion of said temperature gradient at a temperature about 2°C
to 5°C hotter than the melting point of said molten wax,
passing the coextruded core material and molten wax
from said concentric nozzle vertically downward through said
liquid consisting of methanol, ethanol, propanol, and
combinations thereof beginning at the upper portion to the
lower portion to form discrete capsules wherein said molten
wax is gradually solidified and coats said hydrophilic core
material, and
collecting said discrete capsules from the bottom portion
of said heated liquid possessing a decreasing temperature
gradient.
Jensen
Arens
Miyano
Suzuki
The References
us 3,265,629
us 3,423,489
us 3,856,699
EP 0 595 263 Al
The Rejection
Aug. 9, 1966
Jan.21, 1969
Dec. 24, 1974
May4, 1994
Claims 7, 9 and 14--22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Suzuki in view ofMiyano, Arens and Jensen.
OPINION
We affirm the rejection.
The Appellants, in the Appeal Brief, do not address the Examiner's
reasoning for combining the references to arrive at the claimed method
2
Appeal2014-006859
Application 12/155,067
(Ans. 3-9). Instead, the Appellants merely attack each reference
individually (App. Br. 6-8) which is ineffective when the rejection is based
on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58 (CCPA 1968). In the Reply Brief
the only mention of the Examiner's Answer does not address the Examiner's
reasoning regarding the Appellants' argued point (Reply Br. 2-3; Ans. 5---6).
Hence, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection.
DECISION/ORDER
The rejection of claims 7, 9 and 14--22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Suzuki in view of Miyano, Arens and Jensen is affirmed.
It is ordered that the Examiner's decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
3