Appeal No. 2006-0064 Παγε 7
Application No. 09/155,740
integrity thereof; and reacting the fruit with a solute solution
that includes one or more water activity controlling solutes for
a time sufficient to allow solute infusion into the fruit.
Appellants present arguments suggesting that the invention
at issue (the appealed claims, including independent claim 1)
are drawn to a method that excludes the vacuum step of Reznik
based on the recited “infusion” called for. At page 7 of the
brief, appellants maintain that:
the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical
Terms (fourth edition) defines “infusion” as “the
aqueous solution of a soluble constituent of a
substance as the result of the substances steeping in
the solvent for a period of time.” This is consistent
with the gentle process described in the application,
and clearly excludes abrupt vacuum impregnation, and it
demonstrates that those skilled in the art would
consider “infusion” to exclude vacuum impregnation.
The referred to dictionary definition relates to a product
aqueous solution made by solvating a soluble constituent of a
substance using a steeping process (for example, steeping tea
leaves in water for making a cup of tea). Such a product is not
being claimed at herein. Thus, that argument is not persuasive
primarily because such a limited definition for the claim term
“infusion” is not required by appellants’ specification and
claims. In this regard, claim 1 calls for the allowance of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007