Appeal No. 2004-0329 Page 17
Application No. 09/251,953
have been absolutely no motivation by one of ordinary skill in the art to look to
the animal sciences art and the literature therein.” See Appeal Brief, page 21.
Appellants argue further that the fact that Montanari deals with food safety
further demonstrates that it is non-analogous art. See Reply Brief, page 7.
Appellants also contend that the combination does not provide “any teaching
about the ability to certify 5% or less GMO contamination by tracking lot
identification numbers.” Appeal Brief, page 20.
While the preferred embodiment of Montanari is drawn to animal
processing practices, the reference also discusses food processing practices in
general. For example, the reference defines processing as referring “to the
progress of a product from its origin to its final form, and more particularly refers
to the growing, harvesting, smoking, cooking, grinding, cutting, seasoning,
freezing, and/or curing of a product.” Montanari, Col. 4, lines 17-22. In addition,
the reference also teaches that the invention is drawn “to a method for tracking
the production history of food products, and particularly meat products, to enable
verification of the origin of such products and to trace back the source of
problems that may arise at the consumer level of product distribution.” Id. at Col.
3, lines 11-16.
Montanari is therefore pertinent to the issue of tracking and identifying
food products throughout the production of that product, in order to allow for
identification of problems in the production process, and also allowing for
international organizations “with a process to identify the source and quality of
food products transferred across international boundaries.” Id. at Col. 3, lines
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007