Appeal No. 1996-3871
Application No. 08/354,747
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by or under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over Sorensen, Aung or Copson. 2
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellant and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
We will sustain these rejections for the reasons well
stated by the examiner in his answer. We add the following
brief comments for emphasis only.
It is the appellant’s basic position that the here
claimed products, which are dehydrated biological products
such as food products, retain substantially the flavor and
aroma of the natural (i.e., undehydrated) biological products
by virtue of the process defined in certain of the allowed
claims as explained on pages 27 and 28 of the subject
specification (e.g., see the first sentence in the paragraph
2The appealed claims will stand or fall together; see
page 4 of the brief and page 2 of the answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007