Ex Parte Langley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 16, 2016

13579330 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 16, 2016)

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.
13/579,330 08/16/2012 J. Barton Langley 14144-63917 7656
91437 7590 08/17/2016
Richard Blakely Glasgow
200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
Little Rock, AR 72201
EXAMINER
TARAZANO, DONALD LAWRENCE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1791
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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 J. BARTON LANGLEY, TREVOR W. NELSON,
LUCAS M. MILLER, and ANDREW C. ESTES
____________

Appeal 2015-001642
Application 13/579,330
Technology Center 1700
____________
Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, JULIA HEANEY, and
AVELYN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection2 rejecting claims 1, 3–6, and 15–18 of Application 13/579,330.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Cooling & Applied
Technology, Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Final Rejection mailed December 4, 2013 (hereinafter “Final Act.”).
Appeal 2015-001642
Application 13/579,330
2
BACKGROUND
The subject matter on appeal relates to processing poultry carcasses,
particularly a method for chilling fresh carcasses by chilled water injection
and use of a chilled water bath, or chiller. Specification p. 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief as follows:
1. A method for chilling freshly slaughtered and eviscerated
poultry carcasses, comprising the steps of:
(a) conveying said poultry carcasses having a first temperature
towards an injector operatively connected to a source of chilled
water;
(b) injecting said poultry carcasses with said chilled water,
thereby lowering a temperature of said poultry carcasses from
said first temperature to a second temperature; and
(c) immediately conveying said poultry carcasses having said
second temperature into a chiller having an entrance end and an
exit end, wherein said chiller contains chilled water, wherein said
poultry carcasses are conveyed from said entrance end of said
chiller to said exit end of said chiller, thereby lowering a
temperature of said poultry carcasses from said second
temperature to a third temperature, wherein said third
temperature is effective to reduce bacterial contamination of said
poultry carcasses.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Williams et al. US 3,156,566 Nov. 10, 1964
Leger US 5,431,936 July 11, 1995
Miller et al. US 6,397,622 B1 June 4, 2002

Appeal 2015-001642
Application 13/579,330
3
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–6, and 15–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Williams, Miller, and Leger.
DISCUSSION
Appellants present argument for claim 1 and do not separately argue
dependent claims 3–6 and 15–18. Therefore, we address only claim 1; all
other claims stand or fall with claim 1.
Williams discloses injection of a cold water buffered proteolytic
enzyme solution at a temperature around freezing into a fresh meat carcass,
to improve tenderization of the meat. Williams 1:58–65. Miller discloses an
auger type poultry chiller that provides rapid chilling, where poultry enters
one end of the chiller and exits from the other. Miller 1:10–15, 4:20–38.
Leger discloses a meat treatment process on a conveyor line where meat is
passed by a feeding conveyor from a multi-needle injector to a continuous
tumbler. Leger Fig. 1; 9:66–10:5. The Examiner determines it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
procedures of Williams, Miller, and Leger to provide a continuous method
of producing a meat product with a reasonable expectation of success,
because conveyor belt food transport systems are widely used in the food
industry to connect food processing machines such as injectors and chillers.
Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue the Examiner failed to show it would have been
obvious to combine Williams, Miller, and Leger to achieve the method
recited in claim 1, because none of the references recognizes the
combination of chilled water injection followed immediately by chiller
cooling reduces processing time and the likelihood of bacterial
Appeal 2015-001642
Application 13/579,330
4
contamination, compared to prior art cooling methods alone. App. Br. 10–
11. Appellants further argue that Leger does not provide any motivation to
combine its cooking method with the apparatus and methods of Williams
and Miller, because “Leger is directed to solving a distinct problem … from
the problem solved by the present invention.” Id. at 11.
We have considered each of Appellants’ arguments for patentability.
We are not persuaded, however, that Appellants identify reversible error in
the rejection. “In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Thus, Appellants’
argument that Leger is directed to solving a different problem is not
persuasive. Moreover, the Examiner is not suggesting to combine Leger’s
cooking method with the methods of Williams and Miller. Rather, the
Examiner relies on Leger as teaching conveying poultry carcasses from an
injector to a tumbler station using a feeding conveyor Ans. 4. The Examiner
relies on Miller and Williams as teaching chilling of poultry carcasses by
injection of chilled water and at a chiller station. Ans. 2-3. The combined
teachings of Miller, Williams and Leger would have suggested the subject
matter of claim 1 as determined by the Examiner. Ans. 2-4.
Further, Appellants’ argument that none of the references recognize
the particular combination of steps recited in claim 1 is not persuasive
because that argument attacks the references in isolation, whereas the
rejection is predicated on a combination of the teachings. The Examiner
articulates reasoning having rational underpinnings for combining the prior
art teachings, which demonstrates that the rejection is not based on
impermissible hindsight, and adequately supports the determination of
Appeal 2015-001642
Application 13/579,330
5
obviousness. Id. Specifically, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding Miller, Williams and Leger with regard to claim 1 are located on
pages 2 to 4 of the Answer.
SUMMARY
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3–6, and 15–18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED