Appeal No. 1998-1674 Page 6
Application No. 08/437,712
While the passage at column 10, lines 46-52 does indicate that it is possible to dehydrate some
bars to about 1 to 2 percent water, the passage refers only to "some compositions of this invention."
No mention is made as to whether the composition of Example BB can be dehydrated to such low
levels. Furthermore, the disclosure of Kacher as a whole seems to indicate that higher water levels are
desired. Kacher discloses that the invention is directed to a bar containing "from about 15% to about
40% water." (col. 2, lines 20-29; col. 2, lines 47-53; col. 4, lines 38-46; col. 14, line 48; Claim 1).
With respect to the process used to make the compositions of the examples, including Example BB,
Kacher discloses an optional drying step for reducing the amount of water "to the desired level,
preferably 20-30% water." (col. 15, lines 23-25). The Examiner has provided no convincing reason,
suggestion or motivation for dehydrating the composition of Example BB to less than 2 percent.
Because the Examiner has failed to provide a convincing reason, suggestion or motivation
based in the prior for modifying the teachings of Kacher, we find ourselves in agreement with
Appellants that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the subject matter of the appealed claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007