Appeal 2006-2786
Application 10/240,329
disclosure as stating that all foremilk is separated out so as to prevent any of
the foremilk from entering a milk line or milk tank 20. Specifically,
Petterson states:
Hence, by setting a predetermined value in the control unit 14, which
depends on the required milk quality it is possible to ascertain that no
foremilk or milk not suitable for human consumption comes into the
milk line system including the milk tank. (emphasis added) (Petterson
6, ll. 19-22).
From this disclosure it is clear that Petterson uses control unit 14 to operate
the apparatus to remove all foremilk so that “no foremilk” enters the milk
line system including the milk tank. Control unit 14 is disclosed as being
coupled to sensing means 36 to perform the foremilk removal (Petterson 6-
7).
Petterson also states that Figure 1 “is a general diagram of an
apparatus for separation, analysing and taking care of foremilk according to
the invention” (emphasis added), and Figure 2 “is a diagram of an example
of an arrangement of devices, which are included in the apparatus according
to fig. 1” (Petterson, 4). This disclosure further underscores that Petterson
discloses a method and apparatus for separating out the foremilk.
For the above reasons we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
regarding the § 102(a) rejection of claims 1 and 5 over Petterson.
DEPENDENT METHOD CLAIMS 4 AND 8
Claims 4 and 8 depend upon claims 1 and 5, respectively, and are
rejected under § 102(a) over Petterson. Appellants argue that Petterson does
not disclose the following feature of claims 4 and 8: “separation of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013