Appeal No. 2006-2333
Application No. 10/280,849
recovery of substantiailly all of the proteins and enzymes and
the total milk protein produced by Mulvihill. As noted by the
examiner, the appealed claims do not recite any particular
amount of proteins and enzymes precipitated on a percentage
basis, and the claims also fail to recite any concentration of
ethanol or acetone to serve as a distinction over the about
40 % disclosed by Mulvihill. Also, while appellants refer to
Table 1 on page 8 of the disclosure for showing that “3.1 %
protein were recovered compared to a known protein
concentration of between 2.9 and 3.1 as has been determined in
the literature” (page 2 of brief, penultimate pragraph), we are
at a loss to find any real distinction between the 3.1 %
protein achieved by appellants and the 3.1 % protein reported
in the literature.
Appellants also maintain that the solvent-treated material
of Voelter is one where the casein has been removed and,
therefore, “there can absolutely not be a total milk protein
product which is recovered” (page 5 of brief, first paragraph).
However, as pointed out by the examiner, the claim 4 recitation
of whey and a fraction of milk obtained by acid precipitation,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007