Appeal No. 1996-1992
Application 07/898,373
Claims 1-54, 57-61, and 63-68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies upon Firth, Grabauskas, and the so-called “Applicant’s
disclosed prior art”. We reverse.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1 is directed to a cellulosic food casing composition. As set forth in claim 1 on
appeal, the casing is to have first and second longitudinal portions. A colorant or opacifier
is longitudinally and continuously dispersed in at least one of the portions to provide that
portion with optical values which differ from the other portion. The second portion is to
have a transverse width less than that of the first portion. As seen from claim 1 on appeal,
the optical values for the two portions of the casing are to have specified values. The
advantages of using a casing are set forth in the paragraphs bridging pages 11-12 of the
specification as follows:
The present invention seeks to provide a cellulosic casing and
encased food product whereby the casing may advantageously have at least
two longitudinal portions with different optical properties. In a most preferred
embodiment of the invention a clear colorless, longitudinal portion is
provided in an otherwise colored casing to allow either a manufacturer to
view the encased product e.g. for color development during processing or a
consumer to view the encased product e.g. for meat particle definition and
quality. In this preferred embodiment the colored portion of the casing
makes up an equal or greater surface of casing relative to the clear portion
in order to assist the manufacturer in quality control. This colored portion
helps ensure that casing or casing segments are not mixed with meat
emulsion for admission to the feed hopper of a stuffing machine e.g. by
contamination of meat in the strip-out tub with casing. The colored portion of
the casing also helps identify unpeeled or partially unpeeled casing. Other
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007