Appeal 2007-0295
Application 09/051,565
suggest all the elements of the packed column device as claimed by
Appellant?
We determine that there is a prima facie case of obviousness in view
of the reference evidence, and Appellant’s arguments have not adequately
rebutted this prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore we AFFIRM the
rejection of claims 28, 32, 33, 36-40, 43-48, 50, 53, and 55-70 under
§ 103(a) over the APA in view of Krüger and Perry essentially for the
reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Appellant admits that it was known in the art to boil beer wort to
eliminate unwanted volatile aromatic components from the wort
(Specification 1:17-21; Answer 3);
(2) Appellant admits that it was known in this art to treat beer wort
leaving a reactor with a contraflow of steam in a stripping column,
where the stripping column may be a plate type column or a
column packed with filler bodies (Specification 2:20 – 3:14);
(3) Krüger teaches the use of a plate column as the treatment unit for
removing volatile components from beer wort by countercurrent
contact with inert gas/steam (col. 2, ll. 3-14, 30-32; col. 3,
ll. 21-30);
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013