Appeal 2007-2132
Application 09/761,041
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the Westermann process so that the entire quantity of
beer is processed using a centrifuge because Westermann
teaches that filters and centrifuges are equivalents (col. 3, lines
3-11) and the [admitted] prior art acknowledges that beer is
commonly filtered to remove PVPP.
(Id., sentence bridging 4-5).
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain each of the above
noted rejections except for the § 103 rejection based on Westermann alone.
The § 112, 2nd ¶, Rejection
On this appeal, the Appellant does not contest this rejection. Instead,
the Appellant states that “[t]he claims have been amended herein to obviate
the indefiniteness of certain phrases, in particular the antecedent basis for
[“]the main flow[”]” (Br.(filed Jan. 16, 2004) 4).
The afore-quoted statement is in error. The claims on appeal, in fact,
have not been amended to provide antecedent basis for the claim 10
preamble phrase “the main flow.” While such an Amendment was filed on
June 23, 2003, the Examiner denied entry of this Amendment in an Advisory
Action mailed July 18, 2003. Moreover, the Appellant himself
acknowledges that the Examiner has denied entry of this Amendment via the
“Status of Amendments” page faxed by Appellant on July 11, 2006 for
insertion into his Brief (filed Jan. 16, 2004).
In summary, on the record of this Appeal, the Appellant has neither
contested nor obviated the indefiniteness issue raised by the Examiner. For
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013