Appeal 2007-1213
Application 10/137,306
However, Appellant contends that Cameron does not provide specific
examples demonstrating any utility for the protein isolate (Br. 5-6).
A reference is not limited to the descriptions of the preferred
disclosure or the disclosure of the examples; all its portions must be
considered for what they disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art. A
person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that canola protein
isolates are used in food product compositions.1
Appellant contends that Cameron does not suggest that the protein
isolate has functional properties such as those specified in the claimed
invention. Appellant's contention is not persuasive. The claimed invention
is directed to a food composition that comprises a canola protein isolate.
Cameron discloses to a person of ordinary skill in the art food product
compositions that incorporate canola protein isolate. The identification of
the functional properties of the protein isolate is of no patentable moment.
That is, a person of ordinary skill in the art forming a food product
composition comprising the canola protein isolate described in Cameron
would have been practicing the claimed invention. Mehl/Biophile Int’l
Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1366, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir.
1999) (“Where, as here, the result is a necessary consequence of what was
deliberately intended, it is of no import that the article’s authors did not
appreciate the results.”).
1The prior art, Morris and Cameron, as well as the prior art discussed in the
Background of the Invention portion of the Specification establish canola
protein isolates are routinely incorporated into food product compositions.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013