Appeal 2006-2786
Application 10/240,329
transparency sensor. Rather, Tamas uses a sensor that determines the
presence of blood in the milk based on colour (Tamas, col. 2, ll. 15-20).
Moreover, Tamas uses a predetermined duration to segregate the “first
squirts of milk” (i.e., the foremilk), not a sensing means.
Brayer discloses a method and apparatus for measuring liquid flow,
especially the flow of milk (Brayer, col. 1, ll. 7-9). The method and
apparatus includes light sources (20, 22) and detectors (24, 26) for
determining the velocity and composition (transparency) of the milk flowing
through the apparatus (Brayer, col. 1, ll. 42-57, col. 3, ll. 30-34, col. 4, ll. 22-
31, 47-50). Brayer does not disclose sensing foremilk.
Therefore, even if Brayer’s disclosure that “the sensed optical
property is the transparency of the milk to electromagnetic radiation”
(Answer 8, 9, and 10) is combined with Tamas’ method and apparatus for
providing sterile milk free from blood and pus, one would not achieve the
claimed invention. The claimed invention requires that a transparency
sensor be used to direct foremilk (claim 1), “[an] initial milk flow” (i.e.,
foremilk) (claim 5) or “an initial amount of milk extracted from a teat” (i.e.,
foremilk) (claim 9) to a branch line to avoid contaminating the collection of
the main supply of milk. Neither Tamas nor Brayer discloses sensing the
transparency of foremilk.
Moreover, the combination of Brayer’s transparency sensor with
Tamas’ apparatus for providing sterile milk free from pus and blood would
not produce an apparatus capable of performing the function recited in
apparatus claim 9. The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious
to “add the sensed optical property being the transparency of the milk to
electromagnetic radiation of Brayer” to “the method of Tamas” so as to
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013