Appeal No. 2006-2333
Application No. 10/280,849
etc., points to the fact that “raw liquid milk product” within
the scope of the appealed claims includes the same starting
materials of Voelter.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the inference of
obviousness established by the applied prior art. While
appellants state at page 4 of the brief that they have shown
that 40 % ethanol is not sufficient to precipitate
substantilaly all of the milk proteins, appellants have not
specifically pointed to any such evidence to support this
assertion. It is not within the province of this Board to
review the record and ferret out evidence that supports an
argument made by appellants.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007