Appeal No. 2006-3234
Application No. 90/006,410
otherwise indicating that moisture content matters such that it would have
been obvious for one skilled in the art to vary the moisture content to
achieve a certain result.
The examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 103(a) under Abdallah in
view of Evenstad is REVERSED.
New ground
Based on the reasoning and art relied upon by the examiner we are
persuaded that the claims are unpatentable as being obvious over the
combination of Abdallah, Evenstad, and Otaya. We note however, that the
examiner did not specifically reply upon Otaya in her rejection of claims
1-33, 37-59, 62-94, 96, 97, 100-122, and 127-138. While we believe that the
examiner intended to reject all the claims over the combination of Abdallah,
Evenstad, and Otaya, we will designate the rejection of claims 1-33, 37-59,
62-94, 96, 97, 100-122, and 127-138 as a new ground of rejection.
IV. Order
Upon consideration of the record and for reasons given, it
ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-4, 8-11, 20-23, 30-38,
40, 41, 45, 68, 69, 72, 73, 82-101, 104, and 105 under 35 USC §102(b) as
being anticipated by the Red List is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 34-36, 60,
61, 95, 98, 99 and 123-126 under 35 USC § 103(a) as being obvious over
Abdallah, Evenstad, and Otaya is AFFIRMED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1-33, 37-59,
62-94, 96, 97, 100-122, and 127-138 under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
obvious over Abdallah, Evenstad, and Otaya is designated as a NEW
GROUNDS OF REJECTION; and
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013