Appeal 2007-1896
Application 10/223,864
(e.g., air causing a reduction in flavor and freezer burn) and a known
solution (glazing) (FF 7 and 9). Appellants have not provided any evidence
showing that their application of glazing is anything more than a predictable
use of what was known in the art.
III. CONCLUSION
We determine that Tanigawa suggests heating oysters as claimed and
that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner’s finding of a reason to
combine the teachings of the references was not supported by the evidence.
IV. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
V. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
clj
The Matthews Firm
2000 Bering Dr.
Suite 700
Houston, TX 77057
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013