Appeal 2007-2673
Application 10/354,981
remove air from the container, optionally injecting purge gas into the
container, and sealing the container, and
wherein the cooking efficiency of said foodstuff is synergistically improved
as compared with ozone treatment alone and/or heat treatment alone of said
foodstuff.
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner has relied upon the following reference:
Ratna R. Sharma, Ali Demirci, Larry R. Beuchat, and William F. Fett,
“Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on Inoculated Alfalfa Seeds with
Ozonated Water and Heat Treatment,” Journal of Food Protection, 65, No.
3, 447-451 (2002) (hereinafter referred to as “Sharma”).
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 14, and 18 through 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the disclosure of Sharma.
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision rejecting the
claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ISSUES
1. Would Sharma have taught or suggested exposing a foodstuff to
an aqueous solution containing dissolved ozone “at a temperature and for a
time sufficient to substantially sanitize the foodstuff” as required by claim 1
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)?
FACTS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, AND ANALYSES
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013