Appeal No. 1997-2014
Application No. 07/959,995
California Prune Board, “Utilization of Dried Plums in
Reduced-Fat/Cholesterol-Free Bakery Products,” Research
Report, dated 1992.
Claims 1 through 11 and 13 through 19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dobbin in
view of Fahlen and Matz.
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the California Prune Board
reference.
According to the appellant (e.g., see page 2 of the Brief
and page 2 of the Reply Brief), the claims on appeal are
grouped separately as follows:
(1) claims 1, 4, 5;
(2) claims 2, 3, 8-12;
(3) claims 6, 7; and
(4) claims 13-20.
We refer to the several Briefs and Answers of record for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
the appellant and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007