Appeal No. 2005-1101
Application No. 09/121,725
However, the examiner reasons that, since the claimed method steps are the same as
taught by JP ‘156, the claimed characteristic of eliminating pathogenic Vibriones
bacteria is an inherent property and result of the reference method, absent any clear
and convincing evidence to the contrary (Answer, page 4). The examiner has also
found that high pressure treatment of seafood destroys pathogenic organisms such as
Vibriones, illustrating this finding with Cheftel’s disclosure (id.).
Appellant argues that the cited reference is silent on the possibility or desirability
of the process being conducted at 20,000 psi or at pressures above 56,892 psi, as well
as being silent as to possible effects that different pressure ranges would have on raw
oysters (Brief, page 5). Appellant also argues that the reference is silent on the issue of
pathogenic bacteria elimination (id.).
Appellant’s argument concerning the issue of elimination of pathogenic bacteria
is correct, as admitted by the examiner (Answer, page 4). However, for reasons
discussed in the Answer and set forth below, we agree with the examiner that a
reasonable basis has been established that the elimination of pathogenic bacteria would
have been inherent to the method of JP ‘156. Appellant’s other arguments are not well
taken. Contrary to his own argument, appellant admits that JP ‘156 teaches pressure
ranges overlapping the claimed pressure range (Brief, page 5), with teachings that
higher pressures could be employed, and examples to specific pressures within the
scope of the claimed pressures (see JP ‘156, ¶[0006], and Embodiment 1). Disclosure
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007