Appeal No. 1996-2571
Application 08/119,058
time the invention was made.
Adherence to that model will ensure that the examiner
considers the claims individually and applies the relevant
evidence of obviousness to the subject matter of each
individual claim.
If the examiner adheres to the view that appellant’s
claims are unpatentable over “Tuma in view of Scheuffgen,” at
a minimum, we recommend that the examiner (1) clarify whether
the claims are obvious over Tuma, or over Scheuffgen, or over
the combined teachings of the references, (2) set forth the
reason or suggestion stemming from the prior art that would
have led a person having ordinary skill to a glyceride
composition having an iodine number of 40-90, and (3) set
forth the reason or
suggestion stemming from the prior art that would have led a
person having ordinary skill to fat compositions consisting of
glyceride system A and glyceride system B.
V. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we reverse the rejection of claims 1
through 4, 10 through 12, 21 and 23 through 27 under 35 U.S.C.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007