Appeal 2006-2334
Application 09/909,913
16-17). Appellants thus contend that the references are not combinable
because of the difference in the processing temperature and state of the meat
during processing, one of ordinary skill would not use Peterson’s apparatus
in Margolis’ method (id. 18-19).
The dispositive issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation over Peterson and whether the
Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness over the
combined teachings of Margolis and Peterson, which combination is the
basic combination of references in the grounds of rejection under § 103(a).
The plain language of claim 1 specifies a method comprising at least
the step of using any manner of pliable material which conforms to and at
least partially surrounds to any extent any manner of food item in any
manner effective for rupturing any collagen protein layer at least partially
covering muscle protein fibers thereof in any manner sufficient to form an
opening through the collagen protein layer. The plain language of claim 27
specifies a method comprising at least the step of using two surfaces of any
pliable material which conforms to and at least partially surrounds to any
extent any manner of food item with an applied pressure in the range of from
about 2 to about 120 psig. The transitional term “comprising” opens the
claims to include any manner of additional steps, apparatus components and
processing conditions. See, e.g., Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l
Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1383, 54 USPQ2d 1841, 1845 (Fed. Cir. 2000);
Genentech Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795, 802
(CCPA 1981).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013