Appeal No. 94-2999 Application 07/672,286 alcohol which includes a step of sterilizing a fermentation vessel. The aforementioned sterilization is effected via an alcohol in aqueous solution obtained from a distillation or purification facility associated with the method/process. This appealed subject matter is adequately illustrated by independent claims 8 and 25, a copy of which taken from the appellant’s brief is appended to this decision. The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are: Heden 3,997,400 Dec. 14, 1976 Feldman et al. (Feldman) 4,431,838 Feb. 14, 1984 Tegtmeier 4,845,033 Jul. 4, 1989 Harandi et al. (Harandi) 5,167,937 Dec. 1, 1992 Claims 8 through 28 are rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to comply with the written description requirement set forth in this paragraph. It is the examiner’s basic position that the appealed claims are rendered in violation of the written description requirement by virtue of the claim term “only” because “[t]he specification does not specifically set forth that alcohol should be the “only” sterilant used and that no other sterilant can be used” (answer, page 2). Claims 8 through 28 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Tegtmeier in view of Heden and either 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007