Appeal No. 2006-0064 Παγε 9
Application No. 09/155,740
Reznik wherein uptake or introduction (infusion) of a solute in
the fruit occurs.
In addition, we note that claim 1 does not require a
particular water activity and/or a dried fruit product of any
particular final moisture or water content. Also, in claim 1 the
recited soluble solute/fruit reacting (infusion) step is open to
the addition of water (solvent) with the solute. The final fruit
product of the method is not required to have any particular
water activity. Nor does Reznik require maximizing rehydration,
as argued at page 7 of the reply brief.
Plainly, arguments as to what the present invention
contemplates or seeks (see; e.g., page 3, lines 1-3 of the reply
brief) must correspond to the actual limitation(s) present in a
claim to merit consideration of such an argument. Thus,
arguments (including the opinions asserted in the Reid
declaration related thereto) suggesting that the claimed process
differs from Reznik with respect to the free water content of the
product obtained, the addition of water, and the final water
activity of the product are not persuasive of the unobviousness
of the claimed method.
The argued lack of suggestion for one of ordinary skill in
the art to modify Reznik by employing a water activity
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007