Appeal No. 2006-0064 Παγε 10
Application No. 09/155,740
controlling solute in the vacuum uptake (infusion) step of Reznik
is not persuasive because Reznik teaches that other conventional
water-soluble agents (solutes) may be employed during the vacuum
treatment for protecting the fruit. A water activity controlling
solute, such as the solutes of Hsieh and those admitted to be
known at (page 1, line 26 through page 2, line 3) of appellants’
specification represent such conventional water-soluble agents
that would act as preservatives for the fruit during storage, as
generally suggested for use by Reznik.
While appellants (reply brief, page 2) assert that the water-soluble preservatives
listed by Reznik are not water activity controlling solutes as claimed herein, appellants
have not supported that contention with any evidence establishing that solutes, such as
the potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate, and the other conventional agents
suggested by Reznik would each have no water activity controlling functionality.4 In
4 See appellants’ definition of water activity, as furnished in the specification and
reply brief. As further explained in the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of the Food
and Drug Administration attachment to the reply brief submitted by appellants, “[t]he
vapor pressure of a salt or sugar solution is reduced in comparison to that of pure
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007