Appeal No. 2004-0329 Page 16
Application No. 09/251,953
Finally, claims 40, 41, 43, 44, 65 and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being obvious over the combination of ADM with Poehlman, as further
combined with Montanari. We also affirm this rejection.
The combination of ADM with Poehlman is relied upon as above. With
respect to claims 40 and 41, the rejection notes that the combination fails to
define the processing step as a step of processing the crop into a food product.
Montanari is cited for teaching “the process of a harvested agricultural
product into a food product.” Examiner’s Answer, page 7. Thus, according to
the rejection,
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to further modify the steps of ADM as modified
by Poehlman to include the step of processing into food as
disclosed by Montanari [ ] since it is well known to process
harvested crops into food products and soybean is a well known
crop and constituent of food products.
Id.
With respect to claims 43 and 44, the rejection notes that the combination
of ADM and Poehlman fail to disclose tracking lots through the use of ID
numbers during processing. See Examiner’s Answer, page 7. The rejection
states Montanari discloses “the use of ID tags as ID numbers,” concluding that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to further modify the steps of ADM as modified by Poehlman by adding
the tags of Montanari [ ] when harvested so as [to] insure crop purity.” Id.
In response, Appellants argue that Montanari is non-analogous art
because it relates to animal processing practices, contending that “[t]here would
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007