Appeal No. 2005-1558
Application No. 09/949,704
process of Tesvich ‘064.
The letter from Drs. Bell and Bankston (Exhibit 2) has the same deficiency as
discussed above, namely it only refers generically to oysters produced by “Motivatit’s
high pressure process (HPP)” and “Ameripure,” but does not specifically identify the
processes used to produce these oysters. Similarly, the letter from Dr. Bell and the
accompanying study by Dr. Xu (Exhibit A) do not specify the exact conditions under
which the oysters were produced. Finally, we note that the Bell-Bankston letter (Exhibit
2) admits that the final product oyster from Motivatit and Ameripure are both “vibrio free”
and only differ in physical condition “depending on the application of the shucking knife”
(Exhibit 2, third paragraph; see the Answer, page 6).
The Nelson Declaration is not convincing since this Declaration again does not
identify the specific process conditions used to produce the oysters tested (Declaration,
page 3). The Declarant further states that the oyster meat’s outer membrane is
“usually” cut with the Tesvich oyster but does not specify if this was the product actually
tasted (Declaration, page 3). Declarant also states that the Tesvich process is “very
difficult” to control and results in “over cooking” the less dense oysters with attendant
curling and shrinkage of the meat (Declaration, page 2). However, as correctly noted by
the examiner (Answer, page 7) and discussed above, the Tesvich ‘064 process results
in control of temperature and duration of immersion, depending on oyster size, to not
cook the oyster meat. Declarant specifically states that the Tesvich process involves
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007