Appeal No. 95-2633
Application 08/121,663
The examiner rejects all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of U.S.
2 3
Patents 4,816,189 (Rothbart) and 4,497,800 (Larson). Examiner’s Answer, pp. 3-5. The examiner also
separately rejected claims 7-9 and 11-15 over Larson alone. Examiner’s Answer, p. 6
The Rothbart patent is directed to a process for refining “edible frying oils,” particularly soybean
oils. Rothbart, col. 1, lines 6-9. Rothbart describes the process at col. 3, lines 12-21:
In general, the process involves the steps of: treating unrefined, unbleached
soybean oil with a caustic agent; heating and water washing the treated oil; . . .
dispersing into the oil a minor amount of finely divided, activated metallic salts and
oxides including bleaching earths, clays, etc., and heating the resulting dispersion
in a carbon dioxide atmosphere to a temperature between about 212 degrees F.
to about 260 degrees F. for a predetermined time.
About 212° to about 260°F is the same as about 100° C to about 125°C.
The examiner has identified three differences between the claimed process and the Rothbart patent:
(1) the express recitation of olive oil, (2) the express recitation of the amount of carbonate used to neutralize
the oleic acid, and (3) the temperature used to dry and decolor (bleach) the neutralized oil. Examiner’s
Answer, p. 4. The examiner concluded that none of these differences would have rendered the claimed
invention unobvious and presented argument supporting his conclusion. Examiner’s Answer, p. 4.
Applicant’s brief challenges the examiner’s conclusion only with respect to the temperature difference.
Brief, pp. 9-10.
In the examiner’s view “to modify the time and temperature at which the oil of Rothbart is treated
is seen to be an obvious matter of choice with regard to the particular oil treatment conditions which are
desired.” Examiner’s Answer, pp. 4-5. Missing from the examiner’s rationale is any explanation as to why
one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the process by using a lower temperature.
2
Issued March 28, 1989, based on an application filed August 7, 1986.
3
Issued February 5, 1985, based on an application filed July 6, 1982.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007