Appeal No. 2003-0234
Application No. 09/446,202
37 CFR § 1.196(b) we enter a new ground of rejection of all of
the claims.
The appellants state that claims 1 and 7 stand or fall
together, as do claims 12, 13, 15-19 and 21, and that each of
claims 2-6, 8-11, 14 and 20 stands or falls separately (brief,
page 3). The appellants, however, do not separately argue
claims 3 and 9. These claims therefore stand or fall with the
claim from which they depend, i.e., respectively, claims 2 and 8.
We limit our discussion of the claims in the first two groups to
one claim in each group, i.e., claims 1 and 12, and we discuss
claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 14 and 20 to the extent justified by
the appellants’ arguments. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566
n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Claim 1
Murch ‘295 discloses a method for removing dirt and other
unwanted residues from produce intended for ingestion by humans
or lower animals (col. 1, lines 9-14). The teaching that the
composition with which the produce is contacted does not need a
preservative to prevent the growth of fungi, bacteria, or the
like (col. 9, lines 44-56) indicates that the composition reduces
the level of microorganisms on the produce surface. The teaching
Page 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007