Appeal No. 2004-2015 Page 4
Application No. 09/800,547
known in the art for mixing and emulsifying foods. Under the circumstances, the prior art
provides a road map for combining the teachings of the references so as to meet the requirements
of claim 1.
Appellants argue that Trainor “does not teach, suggest, or disclose, for example, the steps
of forming a premix of raw ingredients which include an oil phase and an emulsifier phase to
make a coarse emulsion to be fed in One Pass to an in-line mixer/emulsifier having a specific
stator and rotor arrangement, as claimed.” (Brief, pp. 9-10). Judging from the underlining in
Appellants’ statement of the argument, the focus of this argument is on the “one pass” aspect of
the mixing in the mill. As pointed out by the Examiner, there is no suggestion in Trainor that
multiple passes occur in the mill. Trainor pumps the dressing base to the colloid mill and then
pumps the dressing base to a clean mixer (Trainor, col. 6, ll. 19-20 and 30-32). One of ordinary
skill in the art would interpret Trainor as describing a one pass operation.
With regard to the specific stator and rotor arrangement, as pointed out by the Examiner
(Answer, p. 6), the Ross rotor and stator is the same rotor and stator used by Appellant
(specification, p. 7, ll. 10-12; p. 9, ll. 14-17). The rotor and stator of Ross clearly has the
structure required by claim 1.
Appellants argue that Trainor does not teach the specific oil amounts, additives and
emulsifier amounts set forth in the presently claimed invention (Brief, p. 10). Appellants further
argue that Trainor does not disclose rotor and stator diameters, critical rotor speeds, tip speeds, or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007