Appeal No. 95-2823
Application No. 08/078,383
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Unichema alone. The
Examiner's Answer is internally inconsistent in (1) stating a
prior art rejection based on Unichema alone; (2) acknowledging
that Unichema falls short with respect to an essential claim
limitation relating to the polyunsaturated fatty acid content;
and (3) relying on Figure 7 of Bansal to cure the noted
deficiency of Unichema. Manifestly, the rejection of claims 1
through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Unichema alone is
untenable. This rejection is reversed.
Considering now the rejection of claims 1 through 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Unichema "in view of" Bansal, we have
carefully reviewed these references in their entireties
including Bansal, Figure 7. We have also reviewed the
Examiner's Answer and the explanation of the rejection
therein. In our judgment, the examiner does not establish how
a person having ordinary skill in the art, armed with the
disclosures of Unichema and Bansal, would have arrived at the
specifically defined shortening in independent claim 1
comprising a partially hydrogenated plastic canola having (1)
a maximum saturated fatty acid content of about 11.7%; (2) a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007