Appeal No. 1997-1059
Application No. 08/305,733
under 37 CFR § 1.132 filed August 12, 1994 and April 7, 1995
(substitute appeal brief, pages 5-9). We are not persuaded by
the appellants’ arguments and evidence.
As we discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art
would interpret appealed claim 53 to encompass any injection
of the recited noble gas as long as the claimed degree of
saturation (i.e., more than 50%) is satisfied. Although the
specification appears to distinguish the claimed invention
over “blanketing... with any kind of inert gas [e.g.,
nitrogen]” (emphasis added, page 7), it does not limit the
invention as defined in appealed claim 53 to exclude
blanketing with a noble gas (e.g., argon). The appellants’
specification clearly states that the prior art teaches the
injection of argon to impermeable packets of roasted coffee
(page 3). Although the prior art may also teach the use of
nitrogen, this does not negate the teaching with respect to
argon.
Regarding the degree of saturation, the appellants have
stated on this record that “mere blanketing of coffee with
argon, for example still leaves about 2-10% by volume of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007