Appeal No. 2002-2029
Application No. 09/440,037
position that “[c]laims 1, 20, and 23 are indefinite because the
scope of ‘matured beverage’ is unknown.”3 (Answer, page 4.)
Specifically, it is the examiner’s position that neither the
claims nor the accompanying description provide a standard for
ascertaining the degree of maturation. (Id. at pages 5 and 8.)
We cannot agree with the examiner’s analysis and
conclusion. The specification contains the following
enlightenment (page 7, lines 4-11):
The amount of ethyl acetate that is added or that
is contained in the distillate prior to aging the
beverage is somewhat flexible and is based on the
amount of ethyl acetate in the raw beverage and the
amount that is desirable in the finished, aged
beverage. It is the experience of the present
inventors, for example, that one may add enough ethyl
acetate to the raw distillate to bring the
concentration to a level that is somewhat higher than
the desired concentration in the aged beverage. The
target level may be based on a concentration found in
a product that has been aged in a more conventional
manner, whose organoleptic qualities one is trying to
match, or a level may be based on a novel desired
characteristic of the aged beverage. [Emphasis
added.]
From this disclosure and the express terms of the claims, it is
our judgment that one skilled in the relevant art would
understand that the invention recited in the appealed claims is
3 We note that claims 20 and 23 do not recite the term
“matured beverage.” It appears to us, however, that the
examiner’s rejection is based on the belief that the term
“maturing” and “maturation” in the preambles of claims 20 and
23, respectively, render indefiniteness. (Answer, p. 7.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007