Ex Parte MURCH et al - Page 1



                     The opinion in support of the decision being entered             
                           today was not written for publication and                  
                             is not binding precedent of the Board                    
                                                            Paper No. 22              
                      UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE                       
                                     __________                                       
                         BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS                           
                                 AND INTERFERENCES                                    
                                     __________                                       
                     Ex parte BRUCE P. MURCH, BRIAN J. ROSELLE,                       
                           KYLE D. JONES, KEITH H. BAKER,                             
                            THOMAS E. WARD and TOAN TRINH                             
                                     ___________                                      
                                Appeal No. 1998-2439                                  
                             Application No. 08/495,286                               
                                     ___________                                      
                                      ON BRIEF                                        
                                     __________                                       
          Before GARRIS, WALTZ and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent                 
          Judges.                                                                     
          PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.                                   

                                 DECISION ON APPEAL                                   
               This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from             
          the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-13.1  Claims 14-18 are           
          withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected             
          invention.                                                                  
               The subject matter on appeal is represented by claims 1 and            
          4, set forth below:                                                         
               1.  A method for reducing the level of microorganisms on               
          produce comprising the step of contacting the surfaces of said              
          produce with an aqueous cleaning solution comprising at least               
                                                                                      
          1    We note that the examiner has provided a correct version of claims 5, 9,
          and 10 in the supplemental examiner’s answer on page 2.                     




Page:  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007