Appeal 2007-0165
Application 10/207,122
operations of crystallization, crushing, and filtering. However, we concur
with Appellants that Yoneda and Higuchi “can only be viewed as alternative
solutions” which combination does not arrive at the claimed installation.1
As recognized by the Examiner, Yoneda “does not disclose the crystallizer
comprises at least one cooling chamber provide [sic, provided] with at least
one wall permitting heat transfer to form at least one solid block of
crystallized material.[2]” To remedy this deficiency the Examiner relies on
the cooling chamber of Higuchi that permits heat transfer to form at least
one solid block of crystallized material. However, the cooling,
crystallization chamber of Higuchi also comprises the filtering operation
such that modifying the apparatus of Yoneda in accordance with Higuchi
would result in crystallizing and filtering the oils and fats before
transportation to a crusher which, of course, does not correspond Appellants’
installation. Also, while it is not necessary for a finding of obviousness that
the features of one reference be physically incorporated with the features of
another reference, the crystallization and filtering operations of Higuchi are
too integrally related to suggest divorcing the cooling/crystallization
operation from the filtering components.
In our view, the present case provides a classic example of where all
the features of the claimed installation, namely, crystallizer, crusher, and
filter press, were conventional components in the art of dry fractionation of
edible oils and fats, and the Examiner explained what could have been done
by one of ordinary skill in the art in terms of arranging the known
components into a system. However, it is well settled that the mere fact that
1 Page 20 of principal Brief, ¶3.
2 Page 3 of Answer, ¶3.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013