Appeal 2007-1678
Application 09/800,547
reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the
inquiry that controls.”)
“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods
is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. The
question to be asked is “whether the improvement is more than the
predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.” Id.
D. Analysis
Turning first to the rejection over Trainor in view of Ross, we
determine that Appellants have not shown that the use of a colloid mill
mixer/emulsifier modified to have the rotor and stator arrangement of Ross
is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions. Appellants have merely argued that Trainor does not
describe some aspects of the claimed process and Ross does not remedy
those deficencies, but Appellants’ arguments do not take into account the
true scope of the claim nor what the references as a whole, taking into
account the knowledge in the art of mixing and emulsifying dressings,
would have taught to those of ordinary skill in the art.
In an attempt to distinguish the claimed process from that suggested
by the prior art combination, Appellants characterize claim 1 as “directed to
a process for making a mayonnaise and/or salad dressing composition in the
same production line such that a coarse emulsion is sent through an
apparatus in a single pass. Only one production line is required in order to
make two distinct dressing compositions.” (Br. 8-9). Appellants then
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013