Appeal No. 95-0678
Application 07/938,960
orange which would distinguish the orange
from one that is naturally occurring. In
addition, Ex parte Grayson, 51 USPQ 413 holds
that a thing occurring in nature, which is
substantially unaltered, i.e. a headless and
deveined shrimp, is not a “manufacture.” See
MPEP 706.03(b). In both instances the
physical alteration of a naturally occurring
product was not deemed to distinguish that
product from the naturally occurring article,
even if the physical alteration provided some
benefit.
The examiner’s argument is not well taken because of the
differences in the facts of the present case and those of the
cases relied upon by the examiner. The Supreme Court’s reasoning
in American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1,
11-12, 8 USPQ 131, 133 (1931) is:
Addition of borax to the rind of natural
fruit does not produce from the raw material
an article for use which possesses a new or
distinctive form, quality, or property. The
added substance only protects the natural
article against deterioration by inhibiting
development of extraneous spores upon the
rind. There is no change in the name,
appearance, or general character of the
fruit.
In contrast, appellant’s coating on the cottonseed causes
the cottonseed to have a different property. Before coating, the
lint on the cottonseed prevents the cottonseed from flowing like
materials such as beans, corn and grain (specification, page 2,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007