Appeal 2006-2786
Application 10/240,329
flow of milk into the branch line and to direct the milk to flow through the
main milk line” (claim 9) and “means controlled by the control device is
provided to interrupt delivery of milk to the container” (claim 19) (i.e.,
three-way valve 37), which are controlled based on the transparency sensed
by sensing means 36.
We also add that since claims 9 and 19 are apparatus claims, they
must structurally define over the prior art. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473,
1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Petterson’s milking
apparatus structurally satisfies each of Appellants’ features of claims 9 and
19 such that it need only be capable of performing Appellants’ functional
recitations. Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. Petterson’s
apparatus is structured (i.e., the control means 14 receives a signal from the
sensing means 36 and the signal is used to control three-way valve 37 and
valve device 32) such that it is capable of performing the recited functions.
Accordingly, Petterson discloses both of Appellants’ argued features
of claims 9 and 19.
Based on the foregoing analysis of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 19, we
affirm the Examiner’s § 102(a) rejection of argued claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and
19 and non-argued claims 3, 7, 11-18, 20, 22, and 23 over Petterson.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) REJECTION OVER TAMAS
INDEPENDENT METHOD CLAIM 15 AND APPARATUS CLAIM 19
Appellants argue that Tamas uses a color sensor, not a transparency
sensor, to sense bloody and purulent milk (Br. 11, 13). Appellants further
contend that Tamas removes the foremilk based on “a predetermined
duration or determined by a unit of time or within a certain number of pulses
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013