Appeal No. 1999-2324
Application 08/723,737
This argument is not persuasive for several reasons. First,
the claim terminology “substantially similarly sized” (claim
1, line 1) does not preclude at least some disparity in the
size of the material being classified. Second, in the
“Background” section of appellant’s specification in the
paragraph spanning pages 1 and 2, it is stated that it was
known in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to
separate high and low ash fractions of rendered animal on the
basis of particle size. Further, in US Patent 4,759,943 to
Ross at column 2, line 13, through column 3, line 17, there1
appears a discussion of separating high and low ash fractions
of rendered animal meal on the basis of either particle
density or particle size. Based on the breadth of the claim
language appellant has chosen to employ, and fact that prior
to appellant’s invention it was known to classify rendered
animal meal on the basis of size, we remain of the view that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to use air classifier systems like those of Jäger and MPVI to
separate high and low ash fractions of rendered animal meal,
1The Ross patent is discussed in the “Background” section
of appellant’s specification on page 2.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007