Appeal No. 1995-2659
Application 07/896,705
help form a continuous liquid phase which will reduce
porosity and may prevent air permeation through the
bed, in addition to causing damage to mycelia.”
The only passage that might arguably suggest
submerging the support can be found at page 16, lines 7-
9, where ratios
are given that would permit substantially more water than
support. But even this passage cannot support the
examiner’s interpretation because the next sentence
qualifies. “It is naturally desirable that the load of
fatty substrate and
aqueous nutrient solution, or water, be as high as
practicable without saturating the support and destroying
the porosity.” [Our emphasis.] Page 16, lines 13.
Regarding the primary reference, the examiner does
not rebut appellant’s contention (brief p. 5) that Pratt
is conducted under submerged conditions, which appears to
be the case (“submerged aerobic conditions”; col. 4,
lines 58-59). Instead, the examiner (examiner’s answer,
p. 4 and 7) argues that aeration is vigorous enough to
cause the liquid phase to result in “at least some
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007