The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not binding
precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte IHAB M. HEKAL,
CHAO CHEN and XIAOLING DONG
______________
Appeal No. 2006-2153
Application 10/447,199
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before PAK, WARREN and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
WARREN, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the examiner finally
rejecting claims 12, 13, 16 and 17, and refusing to allow claims 1 through 11. Claims 14 and 15
are also pending and stand objected to by the examiner as dependent claims allowable in
substance (see final action mailed August 2, 2004, page 5).
Claim 1 illustrates appellants’ invention of a method for preserving fresh produce, and is
representative of the claims on appeal:1
1. A method for preserving fresh produce comprising the following steps:
a. providing a produce preservation solution comprising:
magnesium ion;
1 We have copied claim 1 as it stands of record in the amendment filed August 30, 2004, entered
by the examiner in the advisory action mailed September 17, 2004 (see answer, page 3).
- 1 -
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007