Appeal 2007-0295
Application 09/051,565
Appellant contends that Perry is contrary to Krüger since Perry
advises the use of packed columns for a low degree of agitation while
Krüger desires a high degree of agitation for his plate device (Br. 15).
Appellant further contends that Perry teaches conditions unfavorable
to packed columns to include solids present in the liquid, and since beer wort
contains solids, Perry must teach away from the claimed invention (Br. 15).
Appellant also contends that Perry agrees with Krüger that plate
stripping or distillation apparatus is best suited for the separation of
materials with distinctly separated boiling points, such as the stripping of
beer wort (Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner contends that Perry teaches all aspects of Appellant’s
claimed packed column, and teaches the “pros and cons” of packed columns
vs. plate columns (Answer 4 and 7).
The Examiner contends that both packed columns and plate columns
were well known for separation of unwanted volatile components, and Perry
teaches that it would have been obvious to use packed columns in place of
the plate columns of Krüger (Answer 4).
Accordingly, the issues in this appeal are as follows: (1) given that it
was well known and desirable to remove unwanted volatile components
from beer wort, would it have been obvious to use a packed column device
for this separation?; and (2) if it would have been obvious to use a packed
column separation device to process beer wort, does Perry disclose or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013