Appeal No. 94-2895
Application 07/908,728
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Lenchin et al. (Lenchin) 4,510,166 Apr. 9, 1985
Morehouse et al. (Morehouse) 4,536,408 Aug. 20, 1985
Cain et al. (Cain) 4,917,915 Apr. 17, 1990
(filed Mar. 2, 1987)
Anter et al. (Anter), Abstract, Accession Number 85-210261/35, “Prodn. of non-fat non-
milk ice cream - from as. mix. conts. sucrose and starch hydrolysate,” DD-161178-A ,
May 2, 1985
Battista et al. (Battista), “Colloidal Macromolecular Phenomena. Part II. Novel
Microcrystals of Polymers,” Journal of Applied Polymer Science, Vol. 11, pp. 481-98
(1967)
Claims 1, 2, and 26 through 104, which are all of the claims on appeal, stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Battista and Cain in view of
2
Morehouse, Anter, and Lenchin. According to the examiner, “it would have been obvious
to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to use starch
hydrolyzates [sic] as taught by Battista et al and Cain et al as a fat replacer in combination
with salt or sucrose because the use of starch hydrolyzates [sic] as fat replacers in
combination with salt or sucrose is conventional in the art” (Answer, page 4).
2The appellants have separately grouped and argued the appealed claims in
accordance with certain claim limitations which will be discussed in the opinion section of
this decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007