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
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007