Appeal 2006-3262
Application 10/780,255
Final Office Action mailed April 22, 2005 at 2).1 The Examiner does not
rely on Roth for disclosing the addition of an ammonia hydroxide solution to
a comminuted meat product, as required by all of the appealed claims.
According to the Examiner, however, “[i]t would have been obvious to use
ammonia gas or aqueous ammonia as the working gas in Roth since it is old
to contact meat with ammonia or ammonium hydroxide to produce a bright
red color in the meat, as evidenced by Hines (Exs. 1 and 2 and claim 1).” Id.
The difficulty we have with the Examiner’s obviousness position is
twofold.
Firstly, the Examiner has not fairly established that Hines teaches or
suggests adding an ammonium hydroxide solution to comminuted meat, as
here claimed. As pointed out by Appellants in the Briefs, Hines teaches that
fresh red meat should be exposed to an atmosphere containing ammonia to
aid in retention of the red meat color (Br. 4 and Reply Br. 1). Hines teaches
that aqua ammonia or liquid ammonia hydroxide may be the source of the
ammonia used in forming the atmosphere that the meat is contacted with
(Hines, col. 1, ll. 55-59, Example 2, and claim 1). The Examiner has not
established that Hines discloses or suggests contacting the meat with aqua
ammonia or adding an ammonium hydroxide solution to the meat. Indeed,
Hines discloses contacting the meat with an atmosphere formed by the liquid
ammonium hydroxide (Example 2).
1 The Examiner refers to this Non-Final Office Action for the statement of
the rejection (Answer 3). As an aside, we note that the practice of
incorporating a statement of rejection in the Answer by referring to another
paper without fully restating the Examiner’s rejection in the Answer is not in
accord with current examination practice. See MPEP § 1207.02, Eighth Ed.,
Rev. 3 (Aug., 2005).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007