Appeal 2007-2184
Application 10/322,838
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Müller US 4,903,590 Feb. 27, 1990
Ludwig US 5,505,972 Apr. 9, 1996
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ludwig in view of Müller.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Issue
The issue in this appeal is: Has the Examiner established that each
and every limitation of the claims is described or suggested by the prior art
or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary
skill in the art?
B. Facts
1. Both Ludwig and Müller are directed to methods of injecting
liquid solutions into meats including poultry.
2. Both Ludwig and Müller teach injecting different amounts of
the liquid solution in different regions of the meat.
3. Ludwig teaches that:
it is possible to differentially inject poultry
carcasses to thereby provide during the injection
process, greater concentrations of the injected
solution at certain regions of the poultry carcass
and lesser concentrations of the injected solution
at other portions so that, upon cooking, the meat of
the carcass appears to have uniform moisture
content throughout.
(Ludwig, col. 2, ll. 37-43 (emphasis added)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013