Appeal No. 94-2895
Application 07/908,728
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the appellants and the
examiner concerning the above noted rejection, we refer to the Brief and to the Answer for
a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
26 through 30 and 62 through 65 but not the rejection of claims 1, 2, 31 through 61, and 66
through 104.
Claims 26 through 30 and 62 through 65
The appellants argue that the applied prior art contains no teaching or suggestion of
the granular starch hydrolysate feature recited in each of the claims under consideration.
This is clearly erroneous. Lenchin expressly teaches granular starch hydrolysates as fat/oil
replacers in foodstuffs (e.g., see the Abstract, lines 21 through 36 in column 3, and lines 52
through 60 in column 5).
The appellants also argue that the applied references contain no teaching or
suggestion concerning a major amount of cold-water insoluble hydrolysate and a minor
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007