Appeal No. 2002-0952
Application No. 08/929,108
Additionally, Daoud teaches (column 3, lines 38-41):
It is anticipated that it will be possible to clean
such filters, in between brewing runs, by using the
same sorts of detergent (acid or alkali), as are
presently used on other items of brewing equipment.
[Emphasis added.]
The appellants point out that Daoud’s method differs from
the invention recited in the appealed claims in that (1) the
prior art method is directed to the filtration of wort, as
distinguished from beer, and (2) the prior art method does not
repeat steps a) to i) in the same filtration run as recited in
step j) of appealed claim 45. (Appeal brief filed Dec. 6, 2000,
paper 33, pages 3-4.)
With respect to the first difference, the examiner takes
the position that “it would be obvious to apply the cleaning
methods taught by Daoud to beer filtration process” because
“Daoud even states that ‘the separation of solids from the wort
by cross-flow or other conventional filtration methods is not
different from that encountered in the filtration of...beer.’”
(Answer, page 8; quoting Daoud’s column 5, lines 29-32.)
Regarding the second difference, the examiner holds:
While Daoud mentions using basic or acidic
cleaning solutions at the end of the filtration run,
he is silent as to their use during the filtration
run. Appellants essentially claim a continuous
filtration method whereby the filter module is
isolated during the filtration of beer, the filter is
cleaned and then the beer [sic] resumes its
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007