Appeal 2006-2786
Application 10/240,329
foremilk is terminated upon the sensed milk transparency rising after the
milk opacity reaches an initial peak after the start of milking” (claims 4 and
8) (Br. 8-9).
We cannot agree with Appellants’ arguments for the reasons below.
As previously noted in our discussion of claims 1 and 5, Petterson
discloses a method for separating foremilk using a transparency sensing
means 36 (Petterson, 6, l. 14 to 7, l. 10). That is, the transparency sensing
means 36 for sensing the presence of clots or blood performs this function
by sensing the transparency of the milk (See our discussion in the CLAIMS
1 AND 5 section of this opinion).
Based on our previous analysis regarding claims 1 and 5, the presence
of blood or clots translates into an increase in the opacity of the foremilk due
to an increase in protein in the foremilk from the blood or clots.
Correspondingly, as the amount of blood or clots in the foremilk decreases,
the transparency of the foremilk increases. Thus, Petterson’s sensing means
36 sends a signal to the control unit 14 indicating the increase in
transparency, and the control unit 14 sends a signal to the three-way valve
37 to control separation in accordance with the transparency measurement
(Petterson, 6, l. 14 to 7, l. 10).
From the foregoing discussion, we find that Petterson satisfies the
termination step of claims 4 and 8.
INDEPENDENT APPARATUS CLAIMS 9 AND 19
Appellants argue that Petterson does not disclose the following claim
features: (1) “control means that receives the signal produced by the optical
sensing means and detects a predetermined change in the transparency
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013