Ex Parte Birk et al - Page 14

               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