Ex parte GANESAN - Page 6

          Appeal No. 1997-0164                                                        
          Application 08/349,300                                                      

          Knechtel (id.).  Accordingly, the examiner applies Dodge, Ban,              
          Simelunas and Tay to show other limitations of the claimed                  
          subject matter (Answer, pages 4-5).  However, the examiner’s                
          conclusion of obviousness is not based on any evidence of why               
          it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of the                  
          applied references, even assuming the individual references                 
          taught each and every limitation of the claims (Answer, page                
          5; see the Brief, page 8).                                                  
               Bell is directed to peanut brittle only while Knechtel is              
          drawn to a peanut brittle product with a small amount of                    
          comminuted popcorn added (see Bell, col. 1, ll. 9-10;                       
          Knechtel, col. 2, ll. 33-39).  The examiner has not                         
          established any convincing evidence or reasoning as to why one              
          of ordinary skill in the peanut brittle art would have used                 
          the rollers of Ban to compress the peanut brittle mixture of                
          Bell or Knechtel, especially considering that Ban is directed               
          to “dough or other similar viscoelastic materials.” (col. 1,                
          ll. 7-8).  Similarly, the examiner has not established any                  
          motivation or suggestion to support the proposed combination                
          of Bell or Knechtel with Tay, who discloses an apparatus with               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007