Appeal No. 2005-1672
Application No. 09/833,866
Implicit in this teaching in Roth is that ammonium hydroxide is
absorbed throughout the meat product prior to the blending and
agitation. Moreover, this teaching supports the examiner’s
finding at page 3 of the Answer that “distribution of ammonium
hydroxide solution throughout a mass of ground or contaminated
meat” necessarily “occurs in Roth [at least] during the blending,
agitating . . . of the meat in the presence of [excess] ammonium
hydroxide.” Subsequent this treatment, the meat may be frozen
and/or chipped for packaging and shipment. See Roth, column 7,
line 65 to column 8, line 5. Thus, in our view, the examiner has
correctly found that Roth describes, or would have suggested, a
meat product identical or substantially identical to the claimed
meat product. We find that nothing in this record referred by
the appellant shows that the claimed moisture adding step causes
the claimed meat product to be patentably different from the meat
product described or suggested by Roth.3 As stated by our
predecessor reviewing court in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255,
195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977):
3 This is especially true in this case since claim 14 does not
preclude unclaimed additional steps, such as excess ammonium hydroxide
or moisture removing steps.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007