Appeal No. 1996-1224
Application 08/292,184
recitation is seen to be a mere substitution of one known fat
composition for another in the manufacture of an edible spread
composition." See the Examiner's Answer at page 4. However,
as emphasized by appellant (Reply Brief, page 3), such a
substitution "would not give the applicant's spread." As
appellant explains in the Reply Brief, Gollan mentions a
variety of fat compositions which consist of animal fat such
as lard, and suet (beef fat and mutton fat in 50/50 ratio),
while the appealed claims define an edible spread
characterized by its freedom from animal fat.
The examiner also erred by dismissing the N-line
values recited in the appealed claims as merely
"characteristic to margarine type spreads." See the
examiner's answer at pages 4 and 5. The examiner offers no
evidentiary support for this conclusory statement. Indeed,
appellant contends that margarines
and spreads on the market have N-line values significantly
different from that of the claimed spread. See the reply
brief at page 2.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007