Appeal No. 2004-1154
Application No. 09/247,219
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the answer and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
We agree with the examiner that, although Tomasula does not
expressly state that the disclosed precipitation process
employing appellant’s high pressure use of carbon dioxide is used
to form a concentrate of vegetable protein, the reference would
have suggested as much to one of ordinary skill in the art,
particularly in light of the Dahlstrom disclosure. While
appellant urges that “[t]he only example of efficacy given by
Tomasula is with milk proteins” (page 6 of supplemental brief,
third paragraph) the examiner correctly points out that Tomasula
specifically teaches that the process may be used to precipitate
materials that are known to precipitate in acidic media (see
column 2, lines 27-31), and that “any precipitable material may
be separated from solution from the novel process described
herein” (column 2, lines 51-53). Accordingly, since, as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007