Appeal No. 2002-0206
Application No. 09/121,725
Letter of Mr. Collette, page 1, lines 11-12)(emphasis added).
We therefore are not persuaded by Mr.Collette’s letter that
the Yasushi reference does not anticipate claims 6 and 7.
Fourth, the appellant directs us to Exhibit C, the letter of
Dr. Moody, which is characterized by him as “evidence that a
‘person of ordinary skill in the art’ considers the instant
invention novel and unobvious.” (Appeal Brief, page 7, lines 22-
23). The letter actually states that:
“Prior to Mr. Ernie Voisin contacting me about the
possibility of using high-pressure treatment for the
elimination of Vibrio vulnificus in raw molluscan shellfish,
I was not aware of the process being used anywhere or by
anyone for that purpose. In addition, I was not aware of
anyone suggesting that the process be used for that purpose
prior to Mr. Voisin contacting me.” (Exhibit C, Letter of Dr.
Moody, page 1, lines 16-19).
All this letter (Exhibit C) states is that its author was
unaware of use of the process prior to being contacted by the
appellant at an unspecified date. It is not evidence that the
invention of claims 3 and 4 is not anticipated by Yasushi.
Consequently, we find that this letter (Exhibit C) is not
persuasive as to the issue of whether Yasushi anticipates the
subject matter of claims 6 and 7.
Fourth, the appellant points to the restriction requirement
of July 21, 1999 (Paper No. 3) which required restriction between
a method of eliminating bacteria and a method of shucking bivalve
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007