Appeal No. 2004-0407
Application No. 09/062,053
REJECTION V
This rejection is also affirmed. Our discussion relating to
rejection IV applies as well to rejection V.
With regard to claims 5 and 29, in our view it would have
been prima facie obvious within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to
use any additional well known technique to promote the
vapor/liquid separation called for by Sommi (col. 4, l. 39-col.
5, l. 29). The examiner asserts that stripping is a notoriously
well known technique for enhancing vapor/liquid separation, and
appellants do not deny that this is so. Accordingly, we hold
that appellants’ process which, in regard to claims 5 and 29,
includes a stripping step, is not patentably distinct from the
process disclosed by Sommi.
With regard to claims 9 and 27, in our opinion it would have
been prima facie obvious within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to
conduct the flashing and distilling operations of Sommi in the
same vessel, rather than in the separate vessels shown in Sommi,
as a matter of engineering expediency in choosing to perform
sequential operations in one piece of equipment rather than in
two. As noted by the examiner, Kellogg offers evidence of the
use in the prior art of flash distillation in a “vacuum still” to
recover essence from a mash.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007