Ex Parte 7,037,543 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 19, 2014

90011964 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
90/011,964 10/17/2011 7,037,543 KALSEC 46 US RX3 9433
25666 7590 06/19/2014
THE FIRM OF HUESCHEN AND SAGE
SEVENTH FLOOR, KALAMAZOO BUILDING
107 WEST MICHIGAN AVENUE
KALAMAZOO, MI 49007
EXAMINER
JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3991
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2014 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex Parte KALSEC, INCORPORATED
Patent Owner and Appellant

____________

Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
US 7,037,543
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before CHUNG K. PAK, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal by Patent Owner Kalsec, Inc., from the
Patent Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 7-25, and 29-41 in this ex parte
reexamination proceeding Reexamination Control 90/011,964 (“the 964
Reexamination”). The Board’s jurisdiction for this appeal is under 35
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

2
U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(b), and 306. We affirm and enter a new ground of
rejection.
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
This appeal involves US 7,037,543 (“the 543 patent”) which issued
May 2, 2006. A Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of the patent was
submitted by a third-party requester on October 17, 2011 (“the 964
Reexamination”).
Claims 1-3, 7-25 and 29-41 are under reexamination; Claims 4-6 and
26-28 are not under reexamination. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 1-3, 7-25 and 29-
41 were rejected in the Office Action dated June 7, 2012 and in the Final
Office Action (“Final Rej’n”) dated February 1, 2013. Patent Owner
appeals the rejection of Claims 1-3, 7-25 and 29-41.
The 543 patent has been the subject of two prior ex parte
reexamination proceedings which resulted in Ex Parte Reexamination
Certificate US 7,037,543 C1, issued January 18, 2011, and Ex Parte
Reexamination Certificate US 7,037,543 C2, issued November 29, 2011.
There were no claim amendments filed in the instant reexamination
proceeding.
The 543 patent teaches “[c]olor shelf life of red meat is important to
consumer acceptance. Consumers judge the freshness of red meat by the
presence of bright red oxymyoglobin pigment.” 543 patent, col. 1, ll. 28-30.
“Oxymyoglobin in fresh red meat decreases with time during storage as it
changes to the stable brown pigment, metmyoglobin.” Id. at col. 1, 30-32.
The 543 patent is said to address “a need for a method of greatly extending
the color life of modified atmosphere packaged fresh red meat, including
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

3
meat that has not been subjected to a chemical processing or pretreatment
step, through the use of a natural treating agent.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 29-33.
The technology in the 543 patent to address this need comprises
contacting the meat with an extract of Labiatae plants. 543 patent at col. 1,
ll. 11-15. Labiatae plants contain compounds that serve as antioxidants. Id.
at col. 5, ll. 3-4. Examples of such plants include rosemary, sage, oregano,
thyme, and mints. Id. at col. 5, ll. 11-13. Rosemary is preferred. Id.

A. Claims
There are four pending independent claims on appeal: claims 1, 24,
40, and 41. All the claims require an extract of Labiatae herb and a modified
atmosphere comprising “high oxygen” levels. The extract is “present in an
amount sufficient to extend the color life of said high oxygen modified
atmosphere packaged fresh red meat.” Claims 1 and 41 are method claims;
claims 24 and 41 are “package” product claims. Claims 1 and 24 are
representative and reads as follows:
1. A method of improving the color life of fresh red meat
packaged in an high oxygen modified atmosphere comprising
contacting fresh red meat with an extract of a Labiatae herb
prior to packaging the meat wherein the extract is free of some
of the volatile oils and has high antioxidant activity and little
antimicrobial activity in fresh red meat and treating the extract
contacted fresh red meat to high oxygen modified atmosphere
packaging, said extract being present in an amount sufficient to
extend the color life of said high oxygen modified atmosphere
packaged fresh red meat.

24. A high oxygen modified atmosphere package comprising
fresh red meat product packaged in an atmosphere of greater
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

4
than about 40% oxygen and wherein said fresh red meat
contains an extract of a Labiatae herb, wherein the extract is
free of some of its volatile oils and has high antioxidant activity
and little antimicrobial activity in fresh red meat and the extract
is present in an amount sufficient to extend the color life of said
high oxygen modified atmosphere packaged fresh red meat.

B. Rejection
Claims 1-3, 7-25, and 29-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Down Thesis1 and Burke2 as “evidenced” by Kalsec3 and
Frankel.4 Answer 2.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Prosecution which led to US 7,037,543
The 543 patent granted from U.S. Application 10/276,675 (“the 675
application”). The claims of the 675 application were originally rejected by
the Patent Examiner as obvious over Ruzek5 in view of a number of
publications, including the Down6 publications and Okayama.7 Ruzek was
characterized by the Examiner as disclosing a “method of improving the
color life of fresh meat by packaging the meat in an elevated oxygen

1 Amy Elizabeth Down Dissertation Thesis, “Comparison of Vitamin E and
Natural Antioxidants on the Lean Color and Retail Caselife of Ground
Beef”, 12/1999.
2 R.M. Burke, F.J. Monahan and M.N. O’Grady, “The colour-stabilizing
effect of rosemary oleoresin and mixed tocopherols on fresh communicated
beef product”, In Proceeding of the 27th annual Food Science and
Technology Research Conference, University College, Cork, 1997 p.285.
3 Kalsec “Herbalox® Seasoning, Technical Data R-10”, June 1991.
4 Edwin N. Frankel, Shu-Wen Huang, Robert Aeschbach and Elizabeth
Prior, “Antioxidant Activity of Rosemary Extract and its Constituents,
Carnosic Acid, Carnosol and Rosmarinic Acid in Bulk Oil and Oil-in Water
Emulsion”, J. Argric. Food Chem. 1996, v.44, pp. 131-135.
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

5
atmosphere and contacting the fresh red meat with a chemical or chemicals
before packaging, which preserve the hemoglobin and myoglobin pigments
in the meat. 675 application, Non-Final Rej’n 2 (June 3, 2004). Down was
said by the Examiner to teach that “herbal extracts are natural antioxidants
and even states that not only do they prevent the onset of lipid oxidation
(which affects the red color) but they thus can prolong the shelf life and help
maintain the red color of beef.” Id. at 3.
In response to the rejection, Patent Owner argued that Down (pp. 13-
18) teaches that Duralox®, which contains rosemary extract, “has a positive
effect on controlling lipid oxidation, but no effect on color stability.” 675
application, Response to Non-Final Rej’n 17 (December 6, 2004). Patent
Owner stated that Duralox® “did not help preserve red meat color.” Id.
With respect to the second Down publication (pp. 19-23), Patent Owner
stated: “Rosemary treatment added only minimal improvement, measured in
fractions of a day. In overall appearance, this amounted to 0.51 and 0.41
days. This study does not render obvious Applicants' finding of significant
color life improvement in MAP packaging.” Id. at 18.

5 Ruzek,US 5,898,610, issued November 23, 1999.
6 A.E. Down, J.B. Morgan, K.E. Nanke and H.G. Dolezal, “Influence of
Vitamine E, Duralox®, and Herbalox® on Lean Color and Retail Case-life
of Ground Beef”, Animal Research Report, 1991, pp. 19-23. A.E. Down,
J.B. Morgan, and H.G. Dolezal, “Comparison of Vitamin E, Natural
Antioxidants and Antioxidant Combinations on the Lean Color and Retail
Case-Life of Ground Beef Patties”, Animal Research Report, 1991, pp. 13-
18.
7 Takahide Okayama, “Effect of Modified Gas Atmoshere Packing Afterdip
Treatment on Myoglobin and Lipid Oxidation of Beef Steaks”, Meat Science
19 (1987) pp. 179-185.
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

6
The Examiner subsequently allowed the claims, but did not provide a
written statement of the reasons for allowance.

B. Reexamination 90/010,117
The 543 patent was subject to Reexamination 90/010,117 (“the 117
Reexamination”). Among the rejections adopted by the Examiner were
anticipation and obviousness rejections over Burke. Burke is also cited in
the instant reexamination. Burke was characterized by the Examiner as
follows:
Burke discloses a study to investigate the effectiveness in
stabilizing the color of beef batter such as minced beef (fresh
red meat), stored in a high oxygen atmosphere of 80% O2 and
20% CO2, by contacting the meat with commercially available
Rosemary oleoresin (an extract of a Labiatae herb) which
contains rosmarinic acid (a natural antioxidant), and which is
effective in maintaining the colour and stabilizes the beef
against oxidation
117 Reexamination, Non-Final Rej’n 8.
Patent Owner responded that Burke discloses a “beef batter,” which is
not a fresh red meat product. 117 Reexamination, Response 19 (August 24,
2009). Patent Owner also challenged the Examiner’s determination that “a
commercially available Rosemary oleoresin which contains rosmarinic acid”
is “effective in maintaining colour . . .’” Id. at 21.
Although Down was not cited in the rejections, Patent Owner stated
that Down “demonstrate that oxidation is prevented when a Labiatae herb
extract preparation is incorporated into a fresh red meat product. Down. et
al., at Table 2, demonstrate that the Labiatae herb extract preparation which
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

7
is incorporated into fresh red meat has no effect on extending the color life
of the fresh red meat product.” 117 Reexamination, Response 7.
In confirming the patentability of the claims, the Examiner found that
Burke teaches “it is other components in the beef product in addition to the
rosemary extract [which] provide the . . . color stabilizing effect.” 117
Reexamination, Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
5 (October 29, 2010). The Examiner concluded: “Patent Owner has pointed
to and provided numerous evidentiary prior art references that demonstrate
that the use of antioxidants such as rosemary extract, in high oxygen
packaged fresh red meat, while retarding lipid oxidation did not necessarily
extend the color life of the fresh red meat (See Down and Okayama).” Id. at
3.

C. Reexamination 90/011,616
The 543 patent was subject to a second reexamination 90/011,616
(“the 616 Reexamination”). The 616 Reexamination did not involve the
publications cited in the present reexamination. See 616 Reexamination,
Non-Final Rej’n (July 8, 2011). Although Down was not cited by the
Examiner, Patent Owner reiterated that Down “does not extend the color life
of the fresh red meat.” 616 Reexamination, Response 11 (September 1,
2011). The Examiner, in confirming the patentability of the claims, wrote:
As previously established in the earlier concluded
reexamination of the '543 patent (90/010,117), the known prior
art methods of inhibiting fat oxidation of red meat in high O2
environment by incorporating labiate herb significantly outside
the disclosed ranges in the '543 patent, would not necessarily
provide the claimed characteristic of extending the color life of
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

8
the high oxygen modified packaged fresh meat. Further, as
already established in the '117 reexamination proceeding, the
prior art demonstrates that the common knowledge in the art at
the time of the invention was that the addition of antioxidants
would not further extend color life of packaged red meat in a
high oxygen modified atmosphere.
616 Reexamination, Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination
Certificate 3 (October 8, 2011).

III. CLAIM INTERPRETION
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of “improving the color life of fresh red
meat.” The method involves “contacting fresh red meat with an extract of a
Labiatae herb.”
The extract is recited in the claim to be “present in an amount
sufficient to extend the color life of said high oxygen modified atmosphere
packaged fresh red meat.” The Examiner interpreted the latter phrase to
mean “that extension of the color life achieved by a treated package only one
day beyond that of a control package would constitute extension (see column
14, lines 10-13) as well as retention in a treated package of the CIE Lab
color value a* >67% beyond that of a control package (see column 11, lines
62-68).” 964 Reexamination, Final Rej’n 4 (February 1, 2013) (emphasis
added).
The Examiner clarified in the Answer, relying on the same disclosure
in the 543 patent, that “the Specialist has interpreted the claim limitation of
‘sufficient to extend the color life’ as constituting an antioxidant treated
meat package having an a* value of 17 or higher for one day longer than a
control package.” 964 Reexamination, Answer 7. Specifically, the
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

9
Examiner cited the statement at column 11, lines 62-64, in the 543 patent
that the “border between acceptable and unacceptable color is dependent
upon the observer, but is around an a* value of 17.” 543 patent at col. 11,
ll. 62-64.
With respect the interpretation that an extension of one day is required
by the claims, the Examiner relied on the following passage: “While the
specification shows methods of extending the color shelf life by several
days, an extension of only one day is commercially advantageous and may
be achieved in art by regulating the dose.” 543 patent, col. 14, ll. 10-13.
The Examiner improperly imported limitations from the specification
into the claims by requiring the extension of color life to be a day or longer.
During reexamination of an unexpired patent, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation in view of the patent specification. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d
1255, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142
(Fed. Cir. 2012). While claims are construed in the light of the patent’s
written description, this does not give license to import limitations from the
specification into the claims when the claim language does not dictate it.
The Examiner did not point to a definition or express statement in the
patent specification that would require one of ordinary skill in the art to
construe “the extract is present in an amount sufficient to extend the color
life of said . . . packaged fresh red meat” to read on extensions of a day or
more. It is true that the scope of the claim is reasonably interpreted to be
limited to color life extensions of commercial value (see 543 patent, col. 9,
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

10
ll. 5-6; col. 11, ll. 65-67).8 While the specification indicates that an
extension of “only one day is commercially advantageous,” it does not
disavow extensions of less than a full day (i.e., a full 24 hours) as being of
no commercial value. Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d
1193, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he presumption [in favor of an ordinary
and customary meaning] will be rebutted if the inventor has disavowed or
disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest
exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.”).
As stated by the Federal Circuit in Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV
Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004), although
“understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained
in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim
limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a
claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” In this
case, we simply do not see a clear definition or exposition in the
specification which would necessitate the narrow construction espoused by
the Examiner.
In sum, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the amount of
Labiatae extract present in the package is not limited to an amount that

8 In Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013),
“storage stable” was interpreted to “include a composition that maintains its
stability during its shelf life for its intended use as an approved
pharmaceutical product for sale and home use by ordinary customers” since
that was the purpose disclosed in the patent for the composition.
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

11
would extend the color life of the fresh red meat by a day or more, but rather
includes any color life extension of commercial value.

IV. SNQ OF PATENTABILITY
Patent Owner contends that there is no SNQ of Patentability because
the newly cited Down Thesis is cumulative to the Down publications cited in
the prosecution of the 675 application which led to the 543 patent. 964
Reexamination, Appeal Br. 13-22.
We agree with Patent Owner that the disclosure of the Down Thesis
overlaps with the disclosure in the Down publications, making the Thesis
cumulative to the publications in certain aspects. 964 Reexamination,
Appeal Br. 13-22. However, the Down Thesis contains Figures 3.6 and 4.6
which apparently do not appear in either of the Down publications and thus
are not cumulative to the Down publications. 964 Reexamination, Answer
9-11. The material in Figures 3.6 and 4.6 is new and was not considered by
the Examiner in the prosecution of the 675 application nor the two previous
reexamination proceedings. Because these figures relate to the extension of
color life by a Labiatae extract, they are pertinent to determining whether the
claims are patentable. See M.P.E.P. ¶ 2242 (Ninth Edition, March 2014.
Accordingly, the Examiner properly found a substantial new question of
patentability to have been raised by the Down Thesis.
In addition to this, because we have interpreted the claims more
broadly than the Examiner, even if the Down thesis is considered to be
cumulative to the already cited Down publications, the Down disclosure
(Thesis and publications) is cast in a new light. (“For example, a substantial
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

12
new question of patentability may be based solely on old art where the old
art is being presented/viewed in a new light, or in a different way, as
compared with its use in the earlier examination(s), in view of a material
new argument or interpretation presented in the request. Such material new
argument or interpretation may be based solely on claim scope of the patent
being reexamined.” M.P.E.P. ¶ 2242, II.A.) The claim interpretation set
forth here necessitates looking at the Down Thesis to determine whether it
describes or suggests the limitations in the claim under the broader
interpretation.
The decision of the Examiner in determining that an SNQ of
Patentability based on the Down Thesis exists is AFFIRMED.

V. REJECTION OVER DOWN THESIS
Claims 1-3, 7-25 and 29-41 stand rejected as obvious in view of the
Down Thesis and Burke as evidenced by Kalsec and Frankel. The Examiner
determined that the data in the Down Thesis “clearly indicated that the use
of rosemary extract antioxidants in fresh ground beef products improve lean
color and prolong retail case-life. See particularly pages 4, 6, 10, 13, 21-22,
26-27, 31-32 and 55.” 964 Reexamination, Non-Final Rej’n 6 (June 7,
2012). In making this finding, the Examiner relied on Figures 3.6 and 4.6 of
the Down Thesis as “clear evidence of extension of color life of the
antioxidant treated red meat more than one day beyond the control group
which neither of the Down literature references provide and which properly
provides the new, non-cumulative technical teaching missing from previous
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

13
examinations of the claims.” 964 Reexamination, Answer 6 (emphasis
added).
The claims do not require that the extract extend the color life of the
red meat by one full day (i.e. 24 hours). As discussed above, this was based
on an unreasonably narrow interpretation of the claims. Thus, even if the
cited figures show less than a full day of extending the color life of the
stored meat, the Down Thesis still meets the claim limitation as properly
interpreted. Patent Owner argues Figures 3.6 and 4.6 of the Down Thesis
showed less than a one full day extension of color life. 964 Reexamination,
Appeal Br. 38-39. However, such argument fails to distinguish over the
claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation. As this was the only
argument raised by Patent Owner, we AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1, 24,
40, and 41, and dependent claims 2, 3, 7-23, 25, and 29-39 which were not
separately argued. 37 C.F.R. 41.67(c)(1)(iii). Since the rationale differs
from the Examiner’s, it is designated as a NEW GROUND OF
REJECTION.

VI. FIGURES 3.6 AND 4.6
Patent Owner argues that Figures 3.6 and 4.6 of the Down Thesis
show an extension of red meat color life of less than a day. The Examiner
disagrees. 964 Reexamination, Answer 6. We have reviewed this evidence
and find that Patent Owner’s position that the extension of red meat color
life of less than a day (i.e., a full 24 hours) is supported by a preponderance
of the evidence. Our reasoning is as follows.
App
Reex
Paten

spec
horiz
meas
Thes
Herb
and c
anim
eal 2014-0
amination
t 7,037,54
Figure 3
ific feature
ontal line
Figure 3
ured by th
is 20-21.
alox® (HE
itric acid.
als whose
03681
Control 9
3
.6 of the D
s, we hav
s and boxe
.6 shows t
e Minolta
Duralox®
RB) is a n
Downs T
diet was s
0/011,964
own Thes
e annotated
s in the tre
he effect o
colorimet
(DURA) i
atural anti
hesis 23.
upplemen

14
is is repro
it with ve
atment tab
f different
er, an obje
s a rosema
oxidant pr
The “Vitam
ted with V
duced belo
rtical line
le.
treatment
ctive test o
ry based n
oduct con
in E” gro
itamin E.
w. To poi
s in graph

s on meat
f color. D
atural anti
sisting of r
up repres
Id. at 18-1
nt out
and
color as
own
oxidant;
osemary
ents
9, 23, and
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

15
26. The “Duralox” and “Herbalox” groups are those in which these natural
antioxidants were added to meat harvested from non-vitamin E
supplemented animals. Id. at 26.
As shown in the table labeled “Treatment,” the Control went from an
acceptable color at day 1 (17.42) to an unacceptable color at day 2 (15.85)
(underline and box were not present in the original figure). The treated
Vitamin E, Duralox, and Herbalox meat (values above heavy line), in
contrast, were still acceptable at day 2, and therefore lasted apparently a day
longer.
Patent Owner, however, argues that “Figure 3.6 which shows that the
untreated control sample reaches an a* value of 17 at 1.25 days of display,
whereas the Duralox and Herbalox treated fresh red meat samples exhibit an
a* value of 17 already by day 2.” 964 Reexamination, Appeal Br. 24. This
is illustrated in the graph reproduced above, where a vertical line (not
present in original figure) is extended downward from the a* value of 17 of
Duralox and Herbalox (substantially overlapping circle and diamond
symbols) – showing that an a* value of 17 is reached at “2 days.” The a*
value of 17 for the control (square symbol) is reached at “1.25 days.” Thus,
Patent Owner argues that the improvement is less than a day (i.e., a full 24-
hours) and does not meet the claimed requirement of an extension of a day
or more. Id. Patent Owner concludes that “the Examiner’s own
interpretation is not met by the data of Figure 3.6 of the Down Thesis.” Id.
The Examiner states that Patent Owner “is basing this assertion on
following the line drawn between the tested data points on the graph in Fig.
3.6, however, the actual measured data points are at day 1 and at day 2 as
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

16
documented in the chart in the figure.” 964 Reexamination, Answer 12.
The Examiner’s statement is correct, but the Examiner did not provide a
reason for rejecting the extrapolation data in Figure 3.6, which is relied
upon by the Patent Owner, to determine the actual time when the acceptable
a* value of 17 was crossed. Indeed, it is reasonable to determine from
Down’s extrapolated curve the actual time when an a* value of 17 was
reached.
Down’s extrapolation is consistent with the statement in the Down
Thesis that Duralox® and Herbalox® extended the lean color acceptability, as
determined by a subjective color measurement, by less than one day (i.e., a
full 24 hours). Down Thesis 30. These were the same subjective a* values
color differentiations described in the thesis abstract of Chapter III on page
23 and in the Down publication on page 19.
Finally, the Examiner did not point to evidence in the Down Thesis
that the author recognized that the Minolta a* values shown in Figure 3.6
demonstrated color extension by a day.
The treatment data of Figure 4.6 of the Down Thesis is reproduced
below.
App
Reex
Paten

Figu
The
The
anim
valu
the c
havin

the s
a* va
26.
the c
conc
to ex
Reex
not s
eal 2014-0
amination
t 7,037,54
re 4.6 show
Duralox® a
Examiner
als fed a d
e of 18.24
ombinatio
g Vitamin
Patent O
ample trea
lues of th
That is, the
ontrol. Fo
rete teachi
tend the c
amination
We agre
upport the
03681
Control 9
3
s the obje
nd Vitam
found that
iet supple
one day b
n package
E alone)
wner cont
ted with D
e untreated
Duralox®
r this reas
ng that La
olor life of
, Reply Br
e with Pat
Examiner
0/011,964
ctive Min
in E group
the combi
mented wi
eyond the
had consi
.” 964 Ree
ends that “
uralox (L
control s
alone doe
on, Patent
biatae herb
fresh red
. 11.
ent Owner
’s finding

17
olta a* val
s were exp
nation (“C
th Vitamin
control pa
stently hig
xaminatio
Figure 4.6
abiatae her
ample.” 9
s not show
Owner arg
extracts
meat over
that Figur
that there
ues for va
lained abo
ombo”) o
E) and D
ckage drop
her a* val
n, Answer
shows th
b extract)
64 Reexam
an exten
ues “Figu
would not
a control
e 4.6 of th
would hav
rious treat
ve.
f Vitamin
uralox® “h
ping belo
ues that th
9.
at the a* v
alone trac
ination, A
sion of col
re 4.6 pro
have been
package.”
e Down T
e been a r

ments.
E (i.e.,
eld an a*
w 17 (and
e package
alues of
k with the
ppeal Br.
or beyond
vides
expected
964
hesis does
easonable

Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

18
expectation that a Labiatae herb extract is “sufficient to extend the color life
of said high oxygen modified atmosphere packaged fresh red meat,” as
required by claim 1.
First, as pointed out by Patent Owner, the experiments described in
Figure 4.6 were not performed in a high oxygen atmosphere as required by
the claims.
Second, of the two experiments in which Duralox® was used to
prolong the color of red meat, one condition (Duralox® alone) did not extend
the meat color, while the other did (Vitamin E and Duralox®). For example,
the Control and Duralox® were less than the acceptable a* value of 17 at day
1. Vitamin E and the Combo, however, still had an a* value of 17 or above
at day 1. In other words, whether Duralox® is sufficient to extend the color
life of red meat is unpredictable since in one treatment group it did not work.
It is also not clear from the data whether the color extension observed
in the combination is due to the Vitamin E, which alone extended the
acceptable color, or the interaction of Vitamin E with Duralox®.

NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). This section provides that “[a] new ground of rejection…
shall not be considered final for judicial review.” Section 41.50(b) also
provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF
THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with
respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as
to the rejected claims:
Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

19
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both,
and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under §
41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2014-003681
Reexamination Control 90/011,964
Patent 7,037,543

20
PATENT OWNER:

THE FIRM OF HUESCHEN AND SAGE
Seventh Floor, Kalamazoo Building
107 West Michigan Avenue
Kalamazoo, MI 49007

THIRD PARTY REQUESTER:

VEDDER PRICE P.C.
1633 Broadway
47th Floor
New York, NY 10019