Appeal No. 1997-2385
Application No. 08/271,571
blanched in "an aqueous, alkaline blanch fluid for a time sufficient for enzyme inactivation"
(c. 3, ll. 59-61) and then "infused with sufficient amounts of water" (c. 3, ll. 63-65).
Subsequently, the infused vegetables are dehydrated (c. 4, ll. 1-3). The drying step can be
effected via microwave heating (c. 11, ll. 34-36).
Thus, Palmer, Sugisawa and/or Lioutas fail to disclose or suggest claimed
limitations (a) through (d) enumerated supra. Moreover, the examiner's conclusion of
obviousness has provided no evidence or analysis or why "those of ordinary skill would
have a reasonable expectation of success" that the methods of the prior art would result in
the recovery of at least 90% of a therapeutic ingredient(s) present in a plant.
Thus, we find that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we do not reach the rebuttal evidence of the Pourrat
Declaration (appended to Paper No. 19, filed February 7, 1994) discussed by appellants
in their Brief at pages 8-9.
After considering the entire record before us, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 30-34 under § 103.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007