Appeal No. 95-0517
Application 07/867,049
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
either Nisshin or Hoogeveen in view of Hawley, Beppu and Lin.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claim 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs. Appellant
does not contest the examiner's finding that the term
"entrudable" of claim 11 does not find descriptive support in
the specification and is indefinite. We note that appellant
offers to amend claim 11 to change "entrudable" to
"extrudable." Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection.
We now turn to the examiner's § 103 rejection of the
appealed claims over Nisshin or Hoogeveen in view of Hawley,
Beppu and Lin. We focus first upon separately argued claim 1.
Claim 1 defines a wick comprising an edible fuel in which there
is suspended a wicking component that comprises fine granular
or powdered, non-combustible, edible material. Neither Nisshin
nor Hoogeveen discloses a wicking component that is fine
granular or powdered, non-combustible and edible. Although
Nisshin discloses an edible candle that has the same advantages
of appellant's candle, viz., edible material that can
mistakenly but safely be eaten by children which drops onto the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007