Appeal No. 1998-2941 Page 40
Application No. 08/061,985
Reexamination Control No. 90/003,682
Food in Canada discloses (p. 28) that it was known in the
art to pasteurize liquid whole eggs by passing the liquid
whole eggs as a continuous stream through a heat exchanger
that imparts turbulent flow to the liquid.
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of the News & Observer
article and claims 12 to 15, 18/12 and 19/12, it is our
opinion that the only differences are the limitations that the
liquid whole egg product is passed as a continuous stream
through the pasteurizing apparatus and that the liquid whole
egg product is subject to turbulence during the pasteurizing
of the liquid whole egg product.
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the
conclusion that it would have been prima facie obvious to one
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007