Ex Parte TAGGART - Page 7




             Appeal No. 2002-1063                                                          Page 7              
             Application No. 09/306,552                                                                        


             (Answer, page 5).  We do not agree.  While the Gies containers are sterilized, the claim          
             requires that the containers be “aseptically” disinfected, that is, sterilized to the extent      
             and in the environment required by the FDA standards, and such is not taught in this              
             reference.  In addition,  there is no suggestion in Gies that spore organisms be reduced          
             during the sterilization process, much less that it be “a 6 log” reduction.  This being the       
             case, we cannot subscribe to the examiner’s position on this issue.                               
                   With regard to the requirement that the bottles be filled with aseptically sterilized       
             foodstuffs, we agree with the examiner that the appellant’s specification suggests that           
             this technique is known in the art (page 3).  However, Gies states that in the field of his       
             invention “[t]he filling and sealing are done under substantially sterile conditions”             
             (column 1, lines 16 and 17; emphasis added), which would mitigate against                         
             modification to aseptic disinfection, considering that this requires the operation to be          
             performed in a sterile environment to FDA standards.                                              


                   Because of the deficiencies explained above, it is our opinion that the combined            
             teachings of Gies and Olsson do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with              
             regard to the subject matter recited in independent claim 1, and the rejection cannot be          
             sustained.  It follows that we also will not sustain the like rejection of claims 2-11 and        
             16, which depend from claim 1.                                                                    









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007