Appeal No. 2005-1101
Application No. 09/121,725
A. Background
This application is a continued prosecution application of application number
09/121,725, in which a merits panel of this Board affirmed the rejections of claims 6-7
under section 102(b) as anticipated by JP ‘156 and claims 3-4 under section 103(a) as
unpatentable over JP ‘156 (see the decision mailed Mar. 10, 2003, Paper No. 24 as
Appeal No. 2002-0206; Brief, pages 1-2). Although some claims in this application are
nearly identical to those presented in the parent application, this appeal involves new
claim 27 as well as consideration of the evidence submitted as Exhibits 1-9 (Brief, page
2).
B. The Rejection under § 102(b)
Claims 6 and 27 stand rejected under section 102(b) as anticipated by JP ‘156,
as evidenced by Cheftel (Answer, pages 3-4).
The examiner finds that JP ‘156 discloses a method of treating shellfish
comprising exposing raw oysters in their shell contained in plastic bags filled with sea
water to hydrostatic pressures of 14,223 to 56,892 psi for a duration of 0.5 to 10
minutes at ambient temperatures without application of heat (Answer, pages 3-4).3
The examiner recognizes that the reference is silent about any effect of the pressure
application on the pathogenic bacteria content of the oysters (Answer, page 4).
3We also adopt all of the factual findings set forth on pages 5-7 of our previous decision
dated Mar. 10, 2003, in Appeal No. 2002-0206 (Paper No. 24).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007