Appeal 2007-1390
Application 10/842,392
placing said top sheet of dockered cracker dough over the
bottom sheet of cracker dough having the bakable filling in a regular
pattern thereon;
applying pressure to the dough sheets in predetermined areas to
seal the bakable filling between the sheets of dough in a perimeter
around discrete portions of bakable filling and to cut and/or score the
dough in a predetermined pattern to form a composite unbaked dough
and filling; and
baking the composite sufficiency to provide a crisp outer crust
that exhibiting [sic, exhibits] textural and microbiological stability.
The Examiner has relied on the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Thulin US 4,618,498 Oct. 21, 1986
Morano US 5,723,164 Mar. 03, 1998
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Morano in view of Thulin (Answer 3).
Appellants contend that Morano describes a shear thinning filling for
use in cookie dough, and these fillings are not of the type claimed and the
dough is not cracker dough (Br. 6).
Appellants contend that Morano teaches co-extruding or co-
laminating but there is no description of anything other than co-extrusion
(Br. 6).
Appellants contend that the fillings of Morano are exemplified as fat-
free or low fat, which is contrary to the present invention which requires a
“significant” oil phase (Br. 7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013