Appeal No. 2006-0064 Παγε 15
Application No. 09/155,740
We are not persuaded by appellants’ contention (brief, page 14) that the claim 1
step requiring the disruption of the fruit via mechanical or physical techniques for
formation of cracks on the surface and/or edges of the fruit while maintaining the fruit
integrity is not suggested by the applied references. In this regard, Reznik clearly
teaches or suggests using squeeze rollers as depicted in drawing Figures 1 and 2 to
develop fissures in the date skin surface without damaging or permanently deforming
the fruit. See, e.g., column 3, line 6 through column 4, line 20 of Reznik. Thus, that
argument of counsel is not only unpersuasive but is seemingly inconsistent with
appellants’ acknowledgment that Reznik discloses fissuring at page 7 of the reply brief,
as well as numbered paragraph 10 of the Reid declaration. We note that appellants
disclose the use of a roller mill, not unlike that disclosed by Reznik, as one way to
produce the cracks (fissures). See, e.g., page 5, lines 15-27 of appellants’ specification.
As for the opinion expressed in the Reid declaration, including numbered
paragraph 11, that the prior art combination proposed by the examiner would not render
the claimed subject mater obvious, we note that the opinion of Dr. Reid does not
address all of the relevant teachings of the applied references, such as the teachings of
Reznik with respect to adding water soluble agents to prevent the dates from spoiling.
In this regard, an expert opinion on the ultimate legal question of
obviousness that is unsupported by an adequate factual analysis
including a consideration of all of the applied references’
teachings, as is the case here, is accorded little weight.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007