Appeal No. 1999-1763
Application No. 08/834,931
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,
to the applied prior art references and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Looking at pages 3 and 4 of the brief, we note that
appellant has indicated that independent claim 1 is separately
patentable; that claims 2 and 3 stand together; that dependent
claim 4 is separately patentable; that claims 5 and 6 stand
together; and that claims 7 and 8 stand together.
THE ANTICIPATION ISSUE
Turning first to the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Price, we observe
that appellant has argued (brief, pages 4 and 5) that Price’s
biomass of worm-containing medium cannot be considered a “thin
layer biomass” as is set forth in claim 1 and carefully
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007