Richard Meyer

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 10, 2020

2020001251 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2020)

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