Appeal No. 2006-0449
Application 10/232,644
without allowing any substantial time for marination” in independent claims 1 and 13, results in
controlling marination time before sealing the bag and before freezing the bag after it is sealed.
The dispositive issues in this appeal involve the interpretation of certain claim language.
We find no definition of “meat” and “fresh meat” which specifies its state of preparation at the
time it is combined with “a marinade” in the written description in the specification other than
the disclosure that “[a]s used herein the term ‘meat’ is intended to include . . . any . . . type of
animal product commonly referred to as meat or fish” (page 6, ll. 2-18). Thus, we interpret these
terms as encompassing any manner of “meat” or “fresh meat,” that is, unfrozen meat, in such a
state of preparation that any person would apply a marinade thereto prior to cooking.
We find no definition of the terms “marinade” and “marination” in the written description
in the specification, and appellant so acknowledges with respect to the former (brief, page 2).
However, appellant argues that “it may be inferred that the marinade is acidic from the
background section, where it is stated that ‘The meat must not be exposed to highly acidic sauces
such as those including vinegar or lemon juice for too long, or the marinade will dissolve the
meat,’” citing specification page 2, ll. 12-14, and points out that the specification Examples
“utilize balsamic vinegar” (brief, pages 2-3). In arguments with respect to the teachings of
Katayama, appellant states that “[w]hile sake and seasonings could be considered a marinade,
mere salt and alkaline cannot be considered a marinade” (brief, page 5), and contends that the
reference at col. 8, ll. 13-42, lists ingredients that “include species which are sometimes used in
marinades” but “like the salt solution and the alkaline solution with which the fish flesh is
treated to reduce purge, do not in themselves constitute a marinade,” arguing that “[t]he acidic
marinating solution of the present invention is not contemplated by Katayama” (reply brief, page
4). In arguments with respect to the examiner’s position, appellant states that “Appellant’s use
of the term . . . relates to soaking in an acid solution, such as lemon juice or vinegar,” pointing to
“the word ‘marinade’ . . . defined by the American heritage dictionary [sic] as ‘A pickling liquid
of vinegar or wine and oil, with various species and oils, in which meat and fish are soaked
before cooking,” and submits that “Appellant clearly contemplates an acidic solution” (reply
brief, page 3; italics emphasis original).
We are not persuaded by appellant that there is basis in the claim language, in the written
description in the specification or elsewhere in the record on which to read the limitation “acidic
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007