Appeal No. 2006-0449
Application 10/232,644
said meat can be properly marinated in the same amount of time as fresh meat placed in
said marinade.
3. A method as in claim 1 wherein said meat is frozen without allowing any substantial
time for marination after vacuum sealing.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Liberman (Liberman ‘034) 4,480,034 Jun. 20, 1989
Liberman et al. (Liberman ‘352) 5,857,352 Jan. 12, 1999
Katayama et al. (Katayama) 5,965,191 Oct. 12, 1999
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1, 3 through 13 and 15 through 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Katayama in view of Liberman ‘352 and ‘034
(answer, pages 3-5).
Appellant presents argument with respect to claims 1, 3, 13 and 15 (brief, pages 4, 7 and
9). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1, 3, 13 and 15. 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 13, 2004).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellant, we
refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition thereof.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
method of freezing meat in a marinade encompassed by appealed claims 1, 3, 13 and 15 would
have been obvious over the combined teachings of Katayama, Liberman ‘034 and Liberman ‘352
to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made. Accordingly,
since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established by the examiner, we again evaluate
all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving
due consideration to the weight of appellant’s arguments in the brief and reply brief. See
generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In order to review the examiner’s application of prior art to appealed claims 1, 3, 13 and
15, we first interpret these claims by giving the terms thereof the broadest reasonable
interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007