Appeal 2006-2786
Application 10/240,329
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-20, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson.
2. Claims 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Tamas.
3. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Tamas in view of Brayer.
4. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
Petterson in view of Tamas.
Regarding the § 102(a) rejection over Petterson, Appellants separately
argue claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 19. Accordingly, claims 3, 7, 11-18, and 20-
23 stand or fall with claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 19.
Regarding the § 102(b) rejection over Tamas, Appellants separately
argue claims 15 and 19. Accordingly, claims 16-18, and 20-23 stand or fall
with claims 15 and 19.
Regarding the § 103(a) rejection over Tamas in view of Brayer,
Appellants separately argue claims 1, 5, and 9. Accordingly, claims 3-4, 7-8
and 11-14 stand or fall with claims 1, 5, and 9.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) REJECTION OVER PETTERSON
INDEPENDENT METHOD CLAIMS 1 AND 5
Appellants argue that Petterson fails to disclose that sensing the
transparency of the milk may be used as a means to control any aspect of the
method (Br. 7). Appellants contend that Petterson does not disclose
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013