Appeal 2007-1390
Application 10/842,392
Appellants contend that the jelly of Thulin and manner of applying it
are different than the invention, where a uniform stream is required which
can not be deposited by the jelly dispensers 32 of Thulin (Br. 7).
Appellants contend that the references can not be combined “without
changing their essential features and adding features shown or suggested by
none” (Br. 8).
The Examiner contends that Morano discloses a filling made by co-
lamination, where the filling is used with cracker dough, and contains an oil
phase (Answer 3-4 and 6).
The Examiner contends that Thulin teaches a process for preparing
composite products such as filled crackers using a depositor that deposits a
plurality of streams of filling, Morano discloses a filling used in cracker
products, and a co-laminating process useful in the final product preparation,
thus suggesting to one of ordinary skill in this art to use the method taught
by Thulin to prepare the filled cracker product disclosed by Morano (Answer
4 and 6).
Accordingly, the issues presented from the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) does Morano disclose, teach, or suggest the filling as required
by claim 1 on appeal?; (2) does Thulin disclose, teach, or suggest the process
of preparing the filled cracker product as required by claim 1 on appeal?;
and (3) has the Examiner properly combined the teachings of these
references to disclose, teach, or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 on
appeal?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013