Appeal No. 1995-2659
Application 07/896,705
conventional in the art of fermentation, and that
Matsuzaki establishes that “flow columns and tank
fermentation are functional equivalents”. The examiner
(Examiner’s Answer, paper no. 13, p.5)
concludes by stating that:
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made would have been motivated to
substitute the porous bed of Brouillard (‘546) for the
vat in the process for microbial conversion of fats to
methyl ketones of Pratt (‘964) for the advantages of
the fluidized bed disclosed by Brouillard (‘546) and
because Matsuzaki et al. (‘498) teach the functional
equivalence of the vat and porous bed column methods.
Appellants respond (brief, paper no. 12, p. 6) by
pointing out that a “significant difference between the
prior art and the claims at issue is the claim
limitation, ‘the substantial absence of a continuous
liquid phase’”; to which Examiner (Examiner’s Answer, p.
7) asserts:
Appellants’ argument hinges upon the phrase “the
substantial absence of a continuous liquid phase”. In
the disclosure at page 7, lines 15-19 one finds the
only clear reference to this phrase wherein it is
stated that “there must be substantially no continuous
aqueous or other liquid phase”. No definition or
interpretation of this phrase is given. It is not
stated what is meant by substantial absence.
“Substantial” permits that there is continuous liquid
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007