Appeal No. 1996-0876
Application 08/123,144
I. Claims 1 through 6, 8 through 14, 16 through 22 and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover, Mamahit, Zook and Kotani.
II. Claims 7, 15 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hoover, Mamahit, Zook and Kotani in view of Hawley.
We reverse both Rejections l and II, and remand the application to the examiner
for further consideration of the patentability of claims 17 through 24. Our reasons follow.
I.
The appellant’s invention is directed to a method of treating food products which is
said to increase their usable shelf life. Specification, p. 1. In particular, the invention
involves “a method for treating nuts in a vacuum to remove substantially all the oxygen
therefrom while leaving the nut meat in a flavorful, edible condition. ... The treated nuts may
then be stored, roasted, baked, or otherwise processed for packaging and shipping.” Id.
The examiner has premised his initial conclusion of obviousness on the teachings
of (i) Hoover, a patent which is said to disclose coating nuts with a warm aqueous solution
comprising oil and antioxidants; (ii) Mamahit, a patent which is said to disclose the coating
of food material by soaking; (iii) Zook, a patent which is said to disclose that “it is well
known to spray nuts and therefore coat by mixing same while under vacuum followed by a
return to atmospheric pressure”; and (iv) Kotani, a patent which is said to disclose “treating
nuts with an inert gas in a pressure vessel to retard oxidation.” Paper No. 8, pp. 2-4. The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007