Appeal 2006-2786
Application 10/240,329
§102(a) over Petterson or under § 102(b) over Tamas. Namely, Appellants
argue that neither Petterson nor Tamas “ha[s] anything to do with the
detection of the transition of a flow of milk from foremilk to normal milk by
monitoring the transparency of the milk” (Br. 17). However, we were
unpersuaded by this argument regarding the § 102(a) rejection over
Petterson for the reasons discussed above.
We add that Petterson discloses a three-way valve 37 for diverting the
milk to either a milk tank 20 or a waste tank 22 depending upon the
transparency value sensed by sensing means 36 (Petterson, 6, l. 14 to 7, l.
10). Accordingly, Petterson’s disclosure anticipates claim 21. Anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215
USPQ 569, 571(CCPA 1982).
For these reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claim 21 over Petterson in view of Tamas.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-20, 22, and 23
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being unpatentable over Petterson is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the Petterson in view of Tamas is AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being unpatentable over Tamas is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, and 11-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tamas in view of Brayer is REVERSED.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013