Appeal 2007-1390
Application 10/842,392
outer layers being dough, prepared by a co-lamination process to yield final
products with a long shelf life. As shown by factual finding (2) listed above,
we determine that Morano teaches fillings used in these filled cracker
products that include an aqueous phase, a solids phase, and an oil phase,
with the ingredients being blended and mixed under shear with emulsifiers.
We note that the disclosure of Morano, contrary to Appellants’ arguments
(Br. 6-7), is not limited to its specific examples but is available for all that it
discloses, teaches, or suggests to one of ordinary skill in this art. See
Widmer, supra.
As shown by factual finding (4) listed above, we determine that
Thulin discloses the processing steps of preparing the top and bottom sheets
of dough, depositing a plurality of streams of filling, placing the top sheet
over the filled bottom sheet, applying pressure to seal the filling between the
sheets, cutting or scoring the dough, and baking the composite, as required
by claim 1 on appeal.2 As shown by factual finding (5) listed above, we
determine that Thulin teaches that the process is applicable to cracker dough
using any “other conventional filling.” Therefore we determine that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have used the method taught by Thulin to
produce the filled cracker products of Morano, since both references are
directed to filled cracker products made by co-lamination of cracker dough
to achieve long shelf life. Conversely, we determine that it would have been
obvious to use the filling taught by Morano as the “conventional filling” in
the process disclosed by Thulin to make a composite filled cracker product.
2 We note that Appellants base no argument on any specific claim (see the
Brief in its entirety). Therefore we limit our discussion to independent claim
1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013