Appeal No. 1996-3028
Application No. 08/270,429
OPINION
The examiner finds that Ermens discloses a process in
which a milk product is subjected to ultrafiltration, treated
and packaged with the ultrafiltration permeate described as a
clear liquid containing only salts, lactose, vitamins and low
molecular weight nitrogen compounds (Answer, page 4). The
examiner also finds that Ermens teaches that treatment of a
dairy product by reverse osmosis produces only water, i.e.,
dairy water (id.). Similarly, the examiner finds that Girsh
discloses the use of a permeate from the ultrafiltration of
milk (Answer, page 5). The examiner recognizes that the
process recited in the claims on appeal requires the use of
reverse osmosis instead of the ultrafiltration disclosed by
the applied prior art (Answer, page 4). From these findings,
the examiner concludes that “it would have been within the
skill of the ordinary worker to use the water from RO [reverse
osmosis] if one did not want to retain the salts, lactose and
vitamins of the UF [ultrafiltration] permeate.” (Answer,
sentence bridging pages 4-5, emphasis added). The examiner
also concludes that it would have been obvious to use water
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007