Appeal No. 2002-2215
Application No. 08/952,475
experimentation by one reasonably skilled in this art.” (Answer,
page 4.)
The appellants’ main argument, on the other hand, is that
“[t]he presently claimed vegetable oil/animal fat ratio is
neither taught nor suggested” by Giese. (Appeal brief, page 5.)
The appellants’ argument does not persuade us of any error
in the examiner’s analysis. When both isolated soy protein and
plant oil (e.g., soybean oil) are used as the binders or
extenders in Giese’s meat products, one of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it prima facie obvious to determine, through
nothing more than routine experimentation, the optimum amounts
for each of the additives to provide a meat product that
minimizes plasma-cholesterol and maximizes “juiciness and
mouthfeel.” In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219
(CCPA 1980)(“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result
effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the
skill of the art.”); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ
233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim
are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover
the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
The appellants urge that certain experimental data in the
specification (Tables 6 and 7, page 11) demonstrate results that
are neither taught nor suggested in the prior art. (Appeal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007