Appeal No. 1996-4109
Application No. 08/123,557
that the only reason or suggestion to modify the references to arrive at the present
invention comes from appellant’s specification.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-13, 19 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 14:
Appellant argues that the prior art teachings (Brief, pages 8-10) suggest that
using the claimed process limitations would result in a distinct snack bar,
specifically, one that would not be palatable. These same arguments are later
incorporated (Brief, page 10) into appellant’s arguments regarding claim 15.
Claim 14 is drawn to a snack bar of claim 1. Appellant recognizes (Brief,
page 8) that “for examination purposes, the claimed product, rather than the recited
process steps, are considered.” Therefore, for the reasons given in the discussion
of claims 1-3, 5-13, 19 and 20 above, we find that the only reason or suggestion to
modify the references to arrive at the present invention comes from appellant’s
specification. However, we note that the process limitations of claim 14, discussed
infra with regard to claim 15, further detract from the examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007