Ex parte GANESAN - Page 8

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

          projecting spikes 56 (see Bell, col. 4, ll. 3-10; Knechtel,                 
          col. 5, ll. 28-41).                                                         
               Dodge is directed to a popcorn coated with a thin candy                
          syrup (col. 2, ll. 4-8).  The examiner has not established                  
          what suggestion would have led the ordinary artisan to combine              
          this reference with the peanut brittle mixtures of Bell or                  
          Knechtel.  It is noted that the examiner appears to apply this              
          reference alone against claim 22 on appeal, which is in                     
          product-by-process form (Answer, page 6).  However, the                     
          reference to Dodge, although exemplifying a popcorn bar (see                
          Figure 5), does not disclose or teach the limitations recited               
          in claim 22 that the popcorn has been compressed, that the                  
          binder is a caramel syrup, or that a confectionary coating has              
          been drizzled on the top of the bar (see Dodge, col. 2, ll. 9-              
          13 and 24-28).  Thus the examiner has failed to establish that              
          the prior art reasonably appears to disclose a product which                
          is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed                 
          In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA                  


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007