Appeal No. 95-3328
Application 07/794,764
791 (CCPA 1974)(“every limitation in the claim must be given
effect rather than considering one in isolation from the
others”). Accordingly, the rejection is summarily reversed.
In response to the rejection, the appellants have
proffered as evidence of an “unexpected result,” a table of
fat products with their respective solids content. Brief, p.
7. However, since we find, on these facts, that the examimer
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
there is no burden on the appellants to provide such a
showing. Accordingly, we have not considered the appellants’
arguments with respect to the referenced table.
Other Issues
In the case before us, it appears that the examiner has
not properly considered the scope of the claims. The
appellants are not claiming all interesterified blends of high
stearic soybean oils but, rather, they are only claiming those
subsets which possess specific melting points. In addition,
we point out that independent claim 1 does not specify the
amount of high stearic soybean oil, oil or fat present in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007