Appeal 2007-0726
Application 10/264,561
considered molds as costly and there would have been motivation to
eliminate them for that reason (FF 11). Frying according to Lanner would
have been recognized as a viable alternative to cooking in a mold as
disclosed in Chino.
A preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s conclusion
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fry an
edible core coated with the claimed mixture.
C. Group 3, Claims 6 and 28
With respect to Group 3, Appellants contend that none of the
references teaches or suggests the claimed continuous belt as recited in
independent claim 28. We note that claims 6 and 8 require a belt coater
while claims 28-34 require a continuous belt. The Examiner contends that
the tilted rotating bed of Lanner is the same as the claimed belt coater
because it performs the same function (Answer 6). The issue is: Does a
preponderance of the evidence support the Examiner’s finding that the tilted
rotating bed of Lanner is the same as the claimed continuous belt or belt
coater of the claims?
Appellants’ Specification, as well as the applied prior art, indicate that
the tumbling bed of Lanner is not a belt coater; nor does it contain a
continuous belt (FF 14-15). The fact that, as found by the Examiner, the
tumbling bed of Lanner performs a function equivalent to the function of the
belt coater with a continuous belt does not mean that the tumbling bed is a
belt coater or has a continuous belt as required by the claims. The claims
require the use of a belt coater or continuous belt and the Examiner has
failed to establish that such a device was used by Lanner. Nor does the
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013