Appeal 2007-0165
Application 10/207,122
the prior art could be modified would not have made the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification. In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In
the present case, Yoneda, Higuchi, and Appellants all disclose three distinct
installations for the dry fractionation of edible oils and fats, but neither
Yoneda nor Higuchi, nor their combination, would have suggested
Appellants’ installation.
One final point remains. Upon return of this application to the
Examiner, the Examiner should consider the patentability of the claimed
subject matter over the patent of Kuwabara (U.S. Patent No. 5,045,243). It
would appear that Kuwabara discloses an installation for the dry
fractionation of edible oils and fats comprising a crystallizer, a crusher, and
a filter press, the three major components of the claimed installation. The
Examiner should determine whether the claimed crystallizer comprising at
least one cooling chamber having at last one wall permitting heat transfer is
patentably distinct from the crystallizer of Kuwabara under 35 U.S.C. 102
and 35 U.S.C. 103. We note that the reference discloses that in practice the
fat is fractionated in a relatively shallow container such as a vat, tray, or the
like, and is cooled slowly with cold air or water or a liquid refrigeration
medium.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013