Appeal No. 97-2502
Application 08/358,353
Claims 14 and 31 are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal and read as follows:
14. A process for preparing a sterile milk pap comprising
mixing heated milk with a cereal product to swell the cereal
product during the mixture so that vegetative microbes are
destroyed to obtain a heat-treated mixture, degassing the heat-
treated mixture to obtain a degassed mixture to avoid oxidation
of the mixture, heating the degassed mixture under ultra-high-
temperature conditions to sterilize the degassed mixture to
obtain a sterilized, degassed mixture and then, cooling the
sterilized degassed mixture.
31. A sterile milk pap comprising, by weight, a sterile,
degassed mixture of between 50% and 80% milk and of between 5%
and 10% swollen cereal product.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Stevens et al. (Stevens) 1,241,163 Sep. 25, 1917
Billerbeck et al. (Billerbeck) 3,506,447 Apr. 14, 1970
Dimler et al. (Dimler) 5,378,488 Jan. 03, 1995
Hall et al. (Hall), Milk Pasteurization, The Avi Publishing
Company, Inc., pp. 107, 117 (1968).
Claims 14 through 28 and 30 through 37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dimler in view of
Billerbeck, Stevens, and Hall.2
2On p. 3 of the Answer, the examiner states that claims 14
through 28 and 30 through 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the applied prior art. However, on p. 5 of the
Answer, she treats claim 29 as if it were included in the
rejection. Moreover, when the appellant attempted to withdraw
claim 29 from appeal on p. 3 of the Reply Brief, the examiner
refused stating that claim 29 can not “be withdrawn at this
time.” Supplemental Answer, p. 1. Regardless of the examiner’s
original intention with respect to claim 29, the appellant’s
withdrawal of this claim from appeal resolves the issue. That
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007