Appeal 2006-1306
Application 10/218,991
making up the center) are cast into molds (Mentink, col. 8, ll. 24-26). The
molds are kept at a temperature of “higher than 90°C” (Mentink, col. 8, ll.
26).
Mentink’s casting disclosure teaches that the “cooked masses” (i.e.,
“Component A” (i.e., xylitol) and “Component B” of the coating material
which is disclosed at col. 7, ll. 21-25, 32-47 and the material for the candy
center which is disclosed at col. 7, ll. 9-13) are cast into heated molds. The
“casting” technique implies that the “cooked masses” are at a temperature at
which they flow (i.e., a temperature that permits casting (i.e. pouring) into
the molds).
From this Mentink disclosure, it seems that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have coated a confection center with a molten polyol because Mentink
discloses forming “cooked masses” that include a polyol (i.e., xylitol) at a
temperature (i.e., 120°C) well above the melting point of xylitol (i.e., 93-
94.5°C (“stabile” form) or 61-61.5°C (metastable form)) and then casting the
“cooked masses” into molds to form the various layers of the multi-layer
confection. This is because the casting step would obviously and necessarily
require that the xylitol be in a flowable, molten state.
Therefore, in response to this remand, the Examiner must determine,
and make of record the results of this determination, the propriety of
rejecting at least claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mentink.
This remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1) (2006)
is not made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly, 37 CFR §
41.50(a)(2) does not apply.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007