Appeal No. 2000-1052
Application No. 09/060,012
Rejsa..." (examiner's answer of Sep. 20, 1999, paper 17, page
4):
Sholl 3,649,299 Mar. 14, 1972
Sholl 3,769,037 Oct. 30, 1973
Appealed claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Townsend in view of Rejsa. (Id.
at pages 4-5.)
We reverse this rejection.
Before discussing the merits of the examiner's proposed
combination of prior art references, we consider the
significance of the last recited step (i.e., the
"coordinating..." step) of appealed claim 22. The appellant
explains that conventional fluid injection machines have a
vertically reciprocating crosshead, which is typically driven by
a crank, and multiple needles. (Specification, page 1, first
paragraph.) The appellant further discloses that the prior art
processes using these conventional fluid injection machines
suffer from several drawbacks. (Id. at pages 1-2.)
Specifically, one of the problems is identified in the
specification as follows (id.):
Such fluid injection machines for meat products
have been used for many years, but they have several
negative factors, one of which is very detrimental.
The distribution of pickle throughout the [pork] belly
should be as uniform as possible. That means that
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007