Page 6
Appeal Number: 2005-2193
Application Number: 09/385,405
The object is to obtain a recycled gelatin product with chemical and physical properties identical
to virgin gelatin such that reuse may be successfully accomplished (col. 2, ll. 48-51). It would
have been within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to select known filters in order
to obtain the required recycled gelatin product. The Examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 71-73, 75-81, and 83.
The Examiner rejects claims 74 and 82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of
Schmidt and Dutre on the basis that the use of tangential flow tubular membrane ultrafiltration
was known in the art of gelatin purification and, therefore, it would have been obvious to have
used such a filtration technique in the process of Schmidt. Appellant argues that the filtration
process of Dutre cannot be used in step (c) of the claimed process because the technique of Dutre
is designed to separate fluids or ions and is not capable of removing residual oil droplets or
emulsified oils (Brief 26-27).
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because claims 74 and 82 are not limited to
treating any particular “first component.” This language is not limited either by the claims or by
the specification to any particular residual oil droplets or emulsified oils, it encompasses the
treatment of ionic impurities. Dutre indicates that the filtration technique removes small
molecular species (impurities) from gelatin (Dutre, p. 234, ll. 38-42).
The Examiner has established a case of prima facie obviousness with respect to the
subject matter of claims 74 and 82 over Schmidt and Dutre in addition to establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness of claims 71-73, 75-81, and 83 over Schmidt. The burden, therefore,
shifts to Appellant to prove non-obviousness through evidence of secondary indicia such as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007