Appeal No. 1995-2659
Application 07/896,705
However, according to appellants (reply brief, paper no.
15), Pratt’s fermentation is in fact conducted under
submerged conditions and the claimed invention cannot be
interpreted to cover employing “much” continuous liquid
phase of the sort which the examiner considers Pratt is
capable of achieving.
The examiner appears to be correct when he suggests
that the subject phrase is explicitly recited only at
page 7, lines 15-19. However, the examiner is not
correct in suggesting that this phrase is not clearly
defined and could allow the method to operate á la Pratt.
Statements made throughout the disclosure, when read by
one of ordinary skill, actually eliminate the possibility
that the claimed method reads on Pratt. Appellants draw
our attention to page 6, lines 5-12; page 7, lines 22-23;
page 16, lines 1-6; and, page 6, lines 13-17, each of
which suggest or indicate the necessity for the support
material to remain porous during the process. To these we
add page 19, lines 9-13:
“It is generally desirable for the bed to be static and
unstirred, since stirring the support bed may tend to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007