Appeal 2007-1896 Application 10/223,864 unpatentable over Tanigawa in view of Hertzberg or Wilson as further evidenced by Banwart.1 II. DISCUSSION A. Issues In reviewing the rejection, we consider the dispositive issues arising from the contentions in the Corrected Appeal Brief filed September 8, 2006 (Brief), the Examiner’s Answer filed November 3, 2006, and the Reply Brief filed January 3, 2007. Appellants’ main contention is that Tanigawa describes cooking and seasoning oysters whereas, in the claimed process, the oysters are raw and unseasoned, the oysters heated only to destroy bacteria and viruses. Appellants also contend that there is no reason to combine the teachings of the references. The issues arising from the contentions of Appellants and the Examiner are: 1. Does Tanigawa suggest heating oysters as claimed? 2. Does Tanigawa suggest a method for reducing pathogens in a raw and unseasoned oyster? And, 3. Have Appellants shown that the evidence does not sufficiently support the Examiner’s finding of a reason to combine the teachings of the references? B. Findings of Fact 1 A rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over other prior art was withdrawn (Answer 3). 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013