Appeal No. 1997-1617 Page 8
Application No. 08/220,808
37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7) and (c)(8)(1995).
Moreover, regarding the hydrogenated palm oil limitation
of claims 26-28, we observe that the examiner has found that
palm oil is a well-known oil which is hydrogenated and that
shortening is a solid fat (supplemental answer mailed November
20, 1996, page 4). We observe that those factual findings by
the examiner are not specifically disputed by appellants in
the reply brief filed in response to the supplemental answer
mailed November 20, 1996. Accordingly, not withstanding
appellants’ opinion to the contrary regarding the obviousness
of using hydrogenated palm oil as a fat in the prior art
product, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led by the teachings of Lees to select a solid fat
such as hydrogenated palm oil. Such a selection merely
involves the matching of a well-known source of a solid fat
(shortening) with Lees’ expressed suggestion of using
shortening as a breadcrumb ingredient.
Accordingly, on this record, we agree with the examiner
that claims 25-28 are obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, over the applied prior art.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007