Appeal 2007-0726
Application 10/264,561
Examiner offer any reasoning establishing the obviousness of the use of such
a device.
Because the finding of the Examiner is not adequately supported by
the evidence, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 8, and 28-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
D. Remand
While the Examiner’s findings and analysis were inadequate to
support the rejection of claims 6, 8, and 28-34, we note that Appellants’ own
Specification indicates that belt coaters with continuous belts were known in
the art for coating edible cores (Specification ¶ 55). Therefore, we remand
this Application to the Examiner for further consideration of the obviousness
of the methods of claims 6, 8, and 28-34.
VII. CONCLUSION
In summary, we sustain the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 9-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a), but do not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 8, and 28-34.
Further, we remand the Application to the Examiner to further consider the
patentability of claims 6, 8, and 28-34 in light of the discussion above.
VIII. DECISION
The decision of the Examiner is AFFIRMED-IN-PART and the
application REMANDED TO THE EXAMINER.
21
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013