Appeal 2007-1596
Application 09/996,707
vegetables/fruits, but contends that none of these references teach or suggest
the need to prevent the growth of bacteria (Br. 14, 16, and 20-21). Appellant
further contends that Moore lacks any teaching or suggestion to use padding
to prevent bruising of the produce (Br. 22).
Appellant contends that Zabron does suggest the use of an anti-
microbial agent with a conveyor belt, but lacks any teaching or suggestion to
use such a belt as padding to mitigate the bruising of fruits and vegetables
(Br. 14). Appellant further contends that it is improper to expand the
teachings of Zabron to materials other than belts (Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 6-7).
Appellant contends that JP ‘841 does not suggest use of treated foam
in contact with food articles (Br. 15).
The Examiner contends that Zabron shows that surfaces that come
into contact with food may desirably contain an anti-microbial agent, and
that one of ordinary skill in this art would have recognized the benefit of
incorporating an anti-microbial agent into food-contacting surfaces (Answer
12).
The Examiner contends that JP ‘841 discloses foam padding with an
anti-microbial agent incorporated therein to inhibit the growth of bacteria on
surfaces recognized as being at risk (Answer 12).
Accordingly, we determine the following issues presented from the
record in this appeal: (1) Has the Examiner established that Appellant was
not in possession of the concept of including a flexible outer layer of vinyl to
reduce the absorption of moisture by the foam padding?; (2) Has the
Examiner established that foam padding on surfaces of a produce handling
machine to mitigate bruising of the produce was known from the prior art?;
(3) Has the Examiner established that adding an anti-microbial agent to a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013