Appeal 2007-1896
Application 10/223,864
unpatentable over Tanigawa in view of Hertzberg or Wilson as further
evidenced by Banwart.1
II. DISCUSSION
A. Issues
In reviewing the rejection, we consider the dispositive issues arising
from the contentions in the Corrected Appeal Brief filed September 8, 2006
(Brief), the Examiner’s Answer filed November 3, 2006, and the Reply Brief
filed January 3, 2007.
Appellants’ main contention is that Tanigawa describes cooking and
seasoning oysters whereas, in the claimed process, the oysters are raw and
unseasoned, the oysters heated only to destroy bacteria and viruses.
Appellants also contend that there is no reason to combine the teachings of
the references.
The issues arising from the contentions of Appellants and the
Examiner are:
1. Does Tanigawa suggest heating oysters as claimed?
2. Does Tanigawa suggest a method for reducing pathogens in a raw
and unseasoned oyster? And,
3. Have Appellants shown that the evidence does not sufficiently
support the Examiner’s finding of a reason to combine the
teachings of the references?
B. Findings of Fact
1 A rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over other prior art was
withdrawn (Answer 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013