Court Opinion

ID: 9450692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:55:31.329265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:25.454454
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(concurring).
The majority opinion affirms the decision of the board without comment on the legal issue raised by the board’s reliance on In re Larsen, 49 CCPA 711, 292 F.2d 531. While I agree with the result reached by the majority, I do so on the basis that I do not consider the Larsen decision to be applicable. Here, it seems to me, Hall clearly teaches that the incompletely hydrolyzed protein alone is an improved flavoring material since it actually improves the flavor of a known flavoring material, and that it is the combination of the incompletely hydrolyzed protein with the hydrolyzed product which is essential to the Hall product. It is clear from a consideration of the Hall reference that the improved flavoring results from the presence of the partial hydrolysates. It is also clear from the method discussed in appellant’s specification and claimed in claims 9 and 21 that appellant’s method of hydrolysis necessarily converts some of the protein to amino acids, the representation being merely that this is not done “to any great extent.” Presumably this is related to appellant’s separation of the hydrolysis products “when the ratio of total nitrogen to amino nitrogen in the products is less than ten and more than one.” However, it is noted that this limitation does not appear in claim 18.
*222Thus, it seems to me that where both Hall and appellant are dealing with the hydrolyzing of proteins, and the distinction resides in the relative proportions of the partial hydrolysates to the amino acids, these similarities make it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the Hall process according to the method claimed in appealed claims 9, 11, 14 and 18 and produce the concentrate claimed in claim 21. The differences between the Hall disclosure and the invention covered by appellant’s claims have been considered but they do not seem to me to be such as would have made appellant’s invention as a whole unobvious at the time it was made.