Richard MeyerDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 10, 20202020001251 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 12/664,577 11/19/2010 Richard S. Meyer 650070.406USPC 3098 500 7590 12/10/2020 SEED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP 701 FIFTH AVE SUITE 5400 SEATTLE, WA 98104 EXAMINER SMITH, PRESTON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1792 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2020 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): USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com pairlinkdktg@seedip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RICHARD S. MEYER Appeal 2020-001251 Application 12/664,577 Technology Center 1700 Before TERRY J. OWENS, JOHN A. EVANS, and BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, 11–16, 18, 19, 45–47, 49 and 50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as JCR Technologies LLC (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal 2020-001251 Application 12/664,577 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method for sterilizing a food product. Claims 1 and 46, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for sterilizing a food product, the method comprising: (a) vacuum packing and sealing the food product in a flexible package to provide a sealed food product; (b) thereafter, freezing the sealed food product to an initial temperature of less than or equal to -2°C to provide a sealed frozen food product in which ice crystals are formed; (c) thereafter, placing the sealed frozen food product in a pressure vessel chamber containing water; and (d) pressurizing the sealed frozen food product in the pressure vessel chamber to a first elevated pressure of at least 250 MPa for a predetermined first period of time for at least 3 minutes, wherein the pressure vessel chamber containing water is maintained at a temperature of -1 °C or lower during pressurizing. 46. A method for sterilizing a food product, the method comprising: (a) placing a sealed package of a frozen food product in a pressure vessel chamber, wherein the sealed package of the frozen food product is vacuum packed; and (b) thereafter, applying at least 250MPa pressure to the pressure vessel chamber for at least 3 minutes, wherein the pressure vessel chamber is maintained at a temperature of -1 °C or lower during pressurizing. Appeal 2020-001251 Application 12/664,577 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Romick US 6,027,751 Feb. 22, 2000 Bunger US 6,132,787 Oct. 17, 2000 Young US 6,652,896 B2 Nov. 25, 2003 Liberman US 2004/0043110 A1 Mar. 4, 2004 Mora- Gutierrez US 2007/0085059 A1 Apr. 19, 2007 Suzuki EP 0 550 787 A1 July 14, 1993 Food Safety Fact Sheet Illinois Dept. of Public Health, http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/fd/fdd- _fs_foodservice.htm Apr. 2003 Freezing of Fruits and Vegetables Agriculture and Consumer Protection, http://www.fao.org/docrep/ 008/y5979e/y5979e03.htm Apr. 27, 2007 REJECTIONS The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: claims 1, 2, 11–16, 18, 45–47, 49, and 50 over Liberman in view of Suzuki and Freezing of Fruits and Vegetables; claims 3–7 over Liberman in view of Suzuki, Freezing of Fruits and Vegetables, Young, Mora-Gutierrez, and Romick; claim 9 over Liberman in view of Suzuki, Freezing of Fruits and Vegetables, and Bunger; and claim 19 over Liberman in view of Suzuki, Freezing of Fruits and Vegetables, and Food Safety Fact Sheet. Appeal 2020-001251 Application 12/664,577 4 OPINION We need address only the two independent claims (1 and 46). Liberman vacuum seals marinated-coated meat in a bag and then freezes the meat by immersing the bag in a -22 to -43.6 ºF brine solution containing 0.05–1.0 wt% cruciferous oil (¶ 15). Liberman believes that due to ice crystal formation in the brine solution which increases the meat’s chilling rate, “the meat product can be chilled rapidly with minimum formation of ice crystals, breakdown of cellular tissue and deterioration of the meat (¶ 33). In Liberman’s two tests of the method, “the completion of thawing was determined by periodically probing the samples with a pin until no further ice crystal was detected” (¶ 35). Suzuki sterilizes meat by freezing it with a liquefied gas, packing the frozen meat in an air-permeable basket, placing the basket in a high-pressure sterilizer at a pressure of at least 300 MPa for about 10–15 minutes such that all cells, inclusive of microorganisms, are deactivated, and then freeze- drying the meat (col. 3, l. 3; col. 4, ll. 14–51). Claim 1 The Appellant argues that Suzuki does not teach or suggest placing sealed meat in a pressure vessel containing water, and that an “important feature of the claimed process is that the sealed frozen food product is placed in a pressure vessel chamber containing water. The pressurization step applies pressure evenly to the frozen food product through the medium of water in the pressure vessel chamber” (Appeal Br. 8, 14). Setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness requires establishing that the applied prior art would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed Appeal 2020-001251 Application 12/664,577 5 invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Examiner finds that “Liberman further teaches a brine/meat composition (which contains water)” (Non-final Rej. 2). Liberman’s brine is in a meat-freezing container (¶ 15). The Appellant’s claim 1 requires freezing a sealed food product and “thereafter, placing the sealed frozen food product in a pressure vessel chamber containing water.” The Examiner does not establish that Liberman and Suzuki would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with an apparent reason to freeze food and then place it in a pressure vessel containing water. The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the method claimed in the Appellant’s claim 1, its dependent claims 2–7, 9, 11–16, 18, 19, 45, and 50, or claim 47 (which depends from claim 46 and requires that the pressure vessel contains water). Claim 46 The Appellant argues that claim 46 “recites the feature of applying pressure to a pressure vessel chamber containing [a] vacuum-packed sealed package of the frozen food product” (Appeal Br. 15). The Appellant provides no argument that Liberman and Suzuki would not have suggested freezing Liberman’s vacuum packed meat in Liberman’s brine solution (¶ 15) and then sterilizing the meat in Suzuki’s high-pressure sterilizer at Suzuki’s disclosed conditions (at least 300 MPa for about 10–15 minutes) (col. 4, ll. 22–34). Thus, we are not persuaded of reversible error in the rejection of claim 46 or its dependent claim 49. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed in part. Appeal 2020-001251 Application 12/664,577 6 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 11– 16, 18, 45– 47, 49, 50 103 Liberman, Suzuki, Freezing of Fruits and Vegetables 46, 49 1, 2, 11–16, 18, 45, 47, 50 3–7 103 Liberman, Suzuki, Freezing of Fruits and Vegetables, Young, Mora- Gutierrez, Romick 3–7 9 103 Liberman, Suzuki, Freezing of Fruits and Vegetables, Bunger 9 19 103 Liberman, Suzuki, Freezing of Fruits and Vegetables, Food Safety Fact Sheet 19 Overall Outcome 46, 49 1–7, 9, 11– 16, 18, 19, 45, 47, 50 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation