Appeal 2006-2334
Application 09/909,913
Appellant requests review of the following grounds of rejection (Br.
2-3) all advanced on appeal:1
claims 1 through 3, 6, 7, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Peterson (Answer 5-6);
claims 1 through 3, 6, 7, 9 through 11, 27, 29, 31 through 34, 92 through 94,
101, and 103 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as unpatentable over Margolis in view
of Peterson (id. 6-8);
claims 14, 18, 37, 40, 97, and 99 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Margolis in view of Peterson further in view of Gould (id. 8);
claims 19, 20, 41, 42, and 100 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as unpatentable over
Margolis in view of Peterson and Gould further in view of Ludwig (id. 8-9);
claims 14 through 16, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as unpatentable
over Margolis in view of Peterson further in view of Nordin (id. 9-10); and,
claims 17, 39, and 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Margolis in view of Peterson further in view of Wittig (id. 10).
The dispositive issues in this appeal involve Peterson alone and as
combined with Margolis. Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed
claims 1 and 27. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
The Examiner contends Peterson teaches a method of pressing meat
between two pliable rubber belts which have first and second surfaces that
conform to and at least partially surround the meat when passing between
successive pairs of rollers of a conveyor, wherein the method “would have
inherently ruptured the meat collagen due to the use of identical materials
and method steps as those claimed by” Appellants (Answer-5-6, 10-11, and
12-19). The Examiner finds Peterson’s method prima facie anticipates claim
1 as a matter of fact (id. 5-6).
1 The Examiner withdrew the ground of rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Klassen (Answer 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013