Appeal No. 96-1238
Application 08/082,177
an iodine value of less than about 10.
Although examiner has asserted that the particular
fats and the used of a scraped wall heat exchanger were the
only differences from the prior art and the claims being
appealed, we do not see where Reid et al and Gunstone suggest
a slotted valve having more than 0.060 inches in width, a
shortening consistency of from about 160 mm/10 to about 275
mm/10, or a shortening having a maximum inert gas bubble size
less than 1 mm. However, because we find that the rejection is
not prima facie obvious because of the lack of motivation to
form the required hardstock blend, we need not address the
sufficiency of disclosure as to the remaining elements.
In summation, we reverse the rejection of claims
23-40 over Reid in view of Gunstone.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R.
1.136(a).
REVERSED
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007