Appeal No. 1997-2926
Application No. 08/376,299
view of Knowlton (Answer, page 7). We have carefully 1
considered the opposing arguments in appellants’ Brief and the
examiner’s Answer. We reverse both of the examiner’s2
rejections for reasons which follow.
OPINION
The examiner finds that the “Background” section of
Hoffmann “discloses a method of treating organic industrial
waste which is substantially the same as that instantly
claimed.” (Answer, page 4). The examiner further finds that
one embodiment of the reference “involves transporting the
bacteria in lyophilized form wherein the media/bacteria are
reconstituted at the site of treating (See column 2, lines 1-
15).” (Id.). The examiner states that the use of freeze-
1The provisional final rejections of claims 1-3, 5 and 7-
14 under § 103 over S.N. 07/834,771 in view of Dyadechko and
claims 6 and 15 under § 103 over S.N. 07/834,771 in view of
Dyadechko and Knowlton have been withdrawn in view of the
amendment subsequent to the final rejection (see the Final
Rejection dated July 11, 1996, Paper No. 15, pages 3-5, and
the Advisory Action dated Oct. 10, 1996, Paper No. 19).
2We have also considered the record in related grandparent
application 07/834,771, including the Decision of a merits
panel of the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences dated
June 24, 1998, Paper No. 19, affirming the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007