Appeal No. 95-4321
Application 07/976,241
DISCUSSION
Grouping of the Claims:
At page 5 of the Appellants' principal brief (principal brief), appellants state that the
claims do not stand or fall together and sets forth the following groupings:
Group One - Claims 1 - 6, 9, and 10.
Group Two - Claims 11 and 14 - 21.
Appellants have not separately argued the claims within each group. Therefore, we
have separately considered the final rejection only as it applies to claim 1, as
representative of claims 1-6, 9 and 10 of Group One, and claim 11, as representative of
claims 11 and 14-21 of Group Two.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-6, 9-11, and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Beadle in combination with Fiehring, Hartley and Barker.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 10:
The examiner has relied upon Beadle as substantially teaching a method of
manufacturing D-tagatose from lactose, whey or deproteinized whey as claimed (Answer,
pages 4-5). The examiner acknowledges that Beadle does not disclose the use of the
yeast and/or bacteria species described in appellants' fermentation step (Answer, page
5). In fact, Beadle does not disclose a fermentation step at all. In attempting to supply that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007