Ex Parte Huisinga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

12911361 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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.
12/911,361 10/25/2010 Benjamin P. Huisinga P07300US2-231A 1018
34082 7590 03/31/2017
7ART FY T AW FTRM PT .f
EXAMINER
CAPITAL SQUARE THAKUR, VIREN A
400 LOCUST, SUITE 200
DES MOINES, IA 50309-2350 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1792
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
kconrad@zarleylaw.com
skosiek@ zarleylaw.com
crasmu ssen @ zarley law .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte BENJAMIN P. HUISINGA, JOS J. KOBUSSEN, ROBERT W.
DAMSTETTER, ADRIANUS JOSEPHES VAN DE NIEUWELAAR, and
MARCUS BERNARD HUBERT BONTJER
Appeal 2016-002576
Application 12/911,361
Technology Center 1700
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, DONNA M. PRAISS and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-002576
Application 12/911,361
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejection of
claims 11—13, 15—19, 21, 28—31, 33, and 34. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of producing cellulose
encased sausages including partially cooking an encased sausage, hot
peeling the encased sausage, and finishing the cooking of the sausage inside
the final packaging (Spec 1:11—15).
Claim 11 is illustrative:
11. Method for producing preformed peeled packed sausages,
comprising the steps of subsequently:
A) heating an encased sausage to a surface temperature of 50°C;
B) peeling a casing from the sausage at a sausage surface temperature
of at least 20°C; and
C) packing the peeled sausage;
D) fully cooking the peeled sausage in the package with intermittent
cooking;
wherein heating of the encased sausage during step A) results in partial
hardening of the sausage dough due to at least partial coagulation of the
proteins thereby providing enhanced rigidity without fully cooking the
sausage;
E) cooling the fully cooked packaged sausage in cold water to
5°C or less.
2
Appeal 2016-002576
Application 12/911,361
Appellants appeal the following rejections1:
1. Claims 11—13 and 15—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freund (US 1,631,723; iss. June 7, 1927) in view of
Menges (US 2,301,564; iss. Nov. 10, 1942), Grey (US 2,630,598; iss.
Mar. 10, 1953), Demarest (US 2,839,780; iss. June 24, 1958), Doyle
(US 3,390,422; iss. July 2, 1968), Trehame (GB 2,248,010 A; pub.
Mar. 25, 1992), Huang (US 5,021,252; iss. June 4, 1991), Vanhatalo
(US 5,053,239; iss. Oct. 1, 1991), Snyder (US 2,328,751; iss. Sept 7,
1943), FAO “Production of Emulsion-Type Saugages, Small Scale
SAUSAGE PRODUCTION, http://web.archive.org/web/200708100
23635/http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6556e/X655 (last visited Mar.
25, 2015) (hereinafter “FAO”)), Francis (US 3,235,388; iss. Feb. 15,
1966), Wallace (US 3,204,844; iss. Sept. 7, 1965), Kentor (US
3,853,999; iss. Dec. 10, 1974), andPotthast (US 4,997,663; iss. Mar.
5, 1991).
2. Claims 11—13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Union Carbide (GB 1,187,635; pub. Apr. 8, 1967)
in view of Trehame, Vanhaltalo, Huang, Grey, Menges, Demarest,
Doyle, Snyder, Potthast, Freund, Francis, Wallace, and Kentor.
3. Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Freund in view of Wallace, Trehame, Vanhatalo, Huang, Francis,
Kentor, FAO, and Snyder.
1 The 35 U.S.C. § 112,11, rejection of claim 34 has been withdrawn by the
Examiner (Adv. Act. 2). The Advisory Action indicated that the After-final
Amendment filed July 1, 2015 would be entered. That After-final
Amendment cancelled claim 32.
3
Appeal 2016-002576
Application 12/911,361
4. Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Union Carbide in view of Treheme, Vanhatalo, Huang, Potthast,
Freund, Francis, Wallace, Kentor, and Snyder.
5. Claims 21 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Freund in view of Grey, Menges, Demarest, Doyle,
Trehame, Vanhatalo, Huang, FAO, Francis, Wallace, Kentor, Potthast
and Masana {Foot and mouth disease virus inactivation in beef
frankfurters using a biphasic cooking system, Food Microbiology,
1995, 12, 373-380) and Konanayakam (US 6,989,170 B2 iss. Jan. 24,
2006).
6. Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Freund in view of Grey, Menges, Demarest, Doyle, Trehame,
Vanhatalo, Huang, FAO, Francis, Wallace, Kentor, Potthast, Cooking
Most Smoked Meats (meetingplace.com, Nov. 1994 p. 46), Lustig
(US 3,589,915 iss. June 29, 1971), Maher (US 3,903,313 iss. Sept. 2,
1975), and Barnett (US 3,113,870 iss. Dec. 10,
7. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Union Carbide in view of Trehame, Vanhaltalo,
Huang, Grey, Menges, Demarest, Doyle, Snyder, Potthast, Freund,
Francis, Wallace, Kentor and “Cooking Italian Sausage”
(http:// www. italian-cooking-made-easy. com/ cookin g-italian-
sa.usage.html accessed Dec. 17, 2012).
8. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Union Carbide in view of Trehame, Vanhaltalo, Huang, Grey,
Menges, Demarest, Doyle, Snyder, Potthast, Freund, Francis,
Wallace, and Kentor.
4
Appeal 2016-002576
Application 12/911,361
9. Claims 21 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Union Carbide in view of Trehaeme, Vanhaltalo,
Huang, Grey, Menges, Demarest, Doyle, Snyder, Potthast, Freund,
Francis, Wallace, Kentor, Masana and Konanayakam.
10. Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Union Carbide in view of Trehaeme, Vanhaltalo, Huang, Grey,
Menges, Demarest, Doyle, Snyder, Potthast, Freund, Francis,
Wallace, Kentor, Freund, “Cooking Most Smoked Meats”, Lustig,
Maher, and Barnett.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Snyder teaches away from intermittent cooking
of the peeled sausage inside the packaging (App. Br. 4). Appellants contend
that Snyder teaches to maintain a cooking temperature in the container and
thus does not teach “intermittent cooking” (id.).
The Examiner’s findings regarding the various prior art references are
located on pages 2 to 6 of the Advisory Action. In each rejection of the
independent claims 11 and 34, the Examiner relies on Snyder to teach
intermittent cooking (see e.g., Adv. Act. 3 and 5). The Examiner finds that
Appellants have not provided a detailed definition of intermittent cooking
and Snyder’s reversing of the direction of the gas flow in the oven after an
interval constitutes intermittent cooking (Ans. 2—4).
The Examiner’s position is undermined by Snyder’s teaching that the
temperature of the heater maintains the desired temperature for cooking
(Snyder 1, col. 2,11. 46—50). If the temperature is maintained then the
5
Appeal 2016-002576
Application 12/911,361
cooking in Snyder must be continuous and would not include periods of time
when the cooking is stopped (i.e., intermittent cooking). The Examiner
defines “intermittent” as “occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or
steady” (Ans. 3). Appellants do not contest this definition. Applying the
unchallenged definition to the claim term, a reasonable meaning of
“intermittent cooking” is cooking that occurs at irregular intervals or not
continuously or steadily. That Snyder maintains the desired temperature
which is used to cook the food indicates that Snyder teaches continuous
cooking. Even if the Examiner is correct that some temperature variation
occurs in Snyder’s device, the mere variation in temperature does not
necessarily constitute intermittent cooking (especially in light of Snyder’s
teaching to maintain a desired temperature). The Examiner has not shown
the applied prior art taught or would have suggested all of the limitations in
the claims.
On this record, we reverse all the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
6