Appeal No. 1996-0351
Application 08/075,740
difference between the claimed curing or treatment liquid and
the curing or treatment liquid described in the Winkler
reference.
In view of the foregoing, we affirm the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 8 through 10, 12 through
14, 19 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 2
Claims 2, 3, 5, 20 and 23, however, are on a different
footing. As indicated by appellants at pages 7 and 8 of3
their Brief and pages 1 and 2 of their Reply Brief, we find no
suggestion in the Winkler reference, which would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to apply vacuum and high pressure
to pickle stocks immersed in water, sweetener or vinegar.
While water, sweetener and vinegar may be known for treating
pickle stocks, the Winkler reference does not indicate that
the vacuum and high pressure treatments described therein are
2Claims 4, 6, 8, 9 and 12 through 14 stand or fall
together with their respective parent claim 1 or 10 since
appellants have supplied no substantive arguments for the
separate patentability of these claims. See Brief and Reply
Brief in their entirety.
3Claims 2, 3, 5, 20 and 23 are considered separately
since appellants have supplied substantive arguments for the
separate patentability of these claims. See Brief, pages 7
and 8 and Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007