Appeal 2007-2132
Application 09/761,041
For these reasons, we cannot sustain the § 103 rejection of all
appealed claims based on Westermann alone.
The § 103 Rejection Based on Westermann in View
of the Admitted Prior Art
In this alternative rejection, the Examiner relies upon the admitted
prior art to supply the above-discussed deficiency of Westermann.
In the admitted prior art, beer is stabilized by treatment with PVPP
(Specification 1). The PVPP is removed from the thus-treated beer by
means of a very large filtration vessel (Specification 2:6-12). In light of this
admitted prior art, the Examiner concludes that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to modify the Westermann process so that the entire quantity of
beer is processed using a centrifuge because Westermann
teaches that filters and centrifuges are equivalents (col. 3, lines
3-11) and the [admitted] prior art acknowledges that beer is
commonly filtered to remove PVPP.
(Answer, sentence bridging pages 4-5).
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Westermann and
the admitted prior art establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. This is
because the result of the Examiner’s proposed combination is predictable.
Specifically, according to the Examiner’s proposed combination, the entire
quantity of PVPP-containing beer is processed in a solid-liquid separation
device (as taught in the admitted prior art) wherein the solid-liquid
separation device is a centrifuge (as taught by Westermann). It would have
been predictable to an artisan that the proposed combination would be
reasonably expected to be successful, particularly since the solid-liquid
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013