Appeal 2006-3312
Application 09/816,774
OPINION
There is no dispute that both Yabe and Aso suggest the use of a
lubricating member made of a polyolefin resin and a lubricant in a food-
processing operation as found by the Examiner (Answer 3-4). The
Examiner acknowledges that neither reference specifically discloses the
temperatures at which the member is used. However, the Examiner finds
that the disclosures of the references provide evidence that normal operating
temperatures for such equipment include temperatures within the claimed
range of from the pour point to not higher than 70°C (Answer 3-6). It
follows that it would have been obvious for the ordinary food processor to
operate the food processing equipment at such normal operating
temperatures.
Appellant seems to believe that the Examiner’s rejection is based on a
theory of inherency (Br. 11). That is not the case. The rejection is based
upon the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to food-
processing applications and the key question is: Would it have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to operate the lubricating member of the
references at temperatures in the claimed range in the ordinary course of a
food-processing operation. Given that food-processing applications include
such things as mixing, kneading, cooling, and filling (Aso, p. 3, ¶ 0002),
operations usually conducted at room temperature (20°C) or below, it is
evident that employing the lubricant member in food-processing equipment
for such uses would result in operation at temperatures below 70°C. We
find no evidence to support Appellant’s assertion that friction would cause
the lubricating member to heat up to such an extent, during operation at
normal operating temperatures, such as 20°C, that the lubricating member
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013