Appeal 2007-2184
Application 10/322,838
lean and fat areas,” “providing a high concentration
brine” for fat areas and “a low concentration brine” for
lean areas, and the supplied brine from each source being
at the same pressure to provide a uniform distribution of
brine throughout the meat product.
9. Appellants’ claimed “high concentration solution” has
higher levels of salts and nitrites than the “low
concentration solution.”
C. Principles of Law
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim 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. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
D. Analysis
The claims require the supply of high concentration brine and low
concentration brine from separate sources to the meat, each brine solution
being delivered at the same pressure to provide a uniform distribution of
brine throughout the meat product (FF 8). The Examiner does not point out
where either Ludwig or Müller teaches or suggests process steps meeting the
requirements of the claims. A high concentration solution within the
meaning of the claims is a solution having higher amounts of salts and
nitrites (FF 9). Ludwig and Müller discuss injecting different total amounts
of brine solution, not solutions of high and low concentrations (FF 2-7).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013