Appeal No. 2002-2145
Application No. 09/113,808
reference. Regarding this issue, the appellants seem to believe
(see item 4 of the Staby declaration) that the pest abatement
teaching in Florida Entomologist (e.g., see the last three
paragraphs on page 544) is unrelated to citrus fruit. When read
in context (e.g., see the first paragraph of the “Toxicity . . .
” article in question which begins on page 543), however, this
teaching plainly is in relation to fruit generally and therefore
citrus fruit specifically.
Likewise, we fully share the examiner’s reasoning and
ultimate conclusion that an artisan, in practicing Liston’s
method on citrus fruit specifically, would have utilized
temperatures within the here claimed range so as to maintain
fruit quality pursuant to the teachings of Urushizaki. The
appellants are incorrect in their belief that the aforementioned
obviousness conclusion is not proper because “the Urushizaki
patent says nothing about the abatement of pests of any kind in
any food commodity” (Staby declaration, item 6). It is true that
the Urushizaki disclosure is focused on conditions which maintain
the quality of food such as citrus fruit without regard to pest
abatement just as examples 6-8 of the subject specification are
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007