Appeal No. 1996-0876
Application 08/123,144
providing a predetermined amount of pecans;
mixing a predetermined amount of an anti-oxidant substance substance [sic] and a
predetermined amount of edible oil to form a treatment solution;
placing said pecans and said treatment solution into a pressure vessel;
reducing the pressure in said pressure vessel to a predetermined pressure value
that is less than one atmosphere;
mixing said pecans and said treatment solution at said reduced pressure value;
increasing the pressure inside the pressure vessel to a pressure value of
approximately one atmosphere;
removing said treated pecans from said pressure vessel.
19. An edible nut product according to claim 11 wherein the step of providing a
predetermined quantity of edible nuts includes providing a predetermined quantity of
pecans.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:4
Mamahit 4,206,246 June 3, 1980
Hoover 4,647,463 Mar. 3, 1987
Kotani et al. (Kotani) 5,208,058 May 4, 1993
Zook et al. (Zook) 5,240,726 Aug. 31, 1993
The claims stand rejected as follows:5
4We point out that in the Answer, the examiner does not list any prior art as being
relied upon for the rejection of the claims. Answer, p. 2. We find this to be clear error on
the part of the examiner. However, in order to advance prosecution of the case, we have
nevertheless considered the references cited in the grounds of the rejection since (i) they
are of record in the Office action (Paper No. 8) of January 4, 1995, and (ii) we are
remanding the application to the examiner for other reasons. See Section II of this
Decision, infra.
5The examiner’s statements of the rejections are set forth on p. 3 of the Answer.
However, the grounds for the rejections are set forth in Paper No. 8.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007