Appeal No. 2006-2153
Application 10/447,199
and an anion selected from the group consisting of: ascorbate ions; erythorbate ions; and
mixtures thereof; and
water;
wherein: the anion and magnesium are present in a mole ratio of from 0.2:1 to 8:1; and
the produce preservative has less than 5% flavonid and less that [sic] 0.1% metal ion sequestrant;
b. applying said produce preservative to the produce.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Warren (Warren ‘522) 4,988,522 Jan.
29, 1991
Warren (Warren ‘313) 5,055,313 Oct. 8,
1991
Chen 5,925,395 Jul. 20, 1999
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 13, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen combined with Warren ‘522 and ‘313 (answer, pages
3-5).
Appellants group the claims as “Claims 1 through 9 [sic, 11]” and “Claims 12, 13 and
16-17” but rely on the same arguments for both groups (pages 1, 2-3 and 5-6). Thus, we decide
this appeal based on claim 1 as representative of the ground of rejection and appellants’
arguments. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
We affirm.
We refer to the answer and to the brief for a complete exposition of the positions
advanced by the examiner and appellants.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in
agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed
method for preserving fresh produce encompassed by appealed claim 1 would have been obvious
over the combined teachings of Chen and Warren ‘5222 to one of ordinary skill in this art at the
time the claimed invention was made. Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has
been established by the examiner, we again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and
2 The examiner points out that the Warren references are the same (answer, page 3) and indeed,
Warren ‘313 matured from a divisional application of the application from which Warren ‘522
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007