Ex parte GANESAN - Page 10

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

          the teachings of this reference with the primary references to              
          peanut brittle as taught by Bell and Knechtel.                              
               General statements regarding the motivation or suggestion              
          are not sufficient, such as the examiner’s general statements               
          regarding the “confection art” (Answer, page 8), “well known”               
          process steps (Answer, pages 9 and 11), and the use of                      
          apparatus for “their known functions” (Answer, page 10).  The               
          showing of evidence regarding the motivation or suggestion to               
          combine the references as proposed by the examiner “must be                 
          clear and particular.”  Dembiczak, supra.                                   
               For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner              
          has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in                
          view of the reference evidence.  Accordingly, the rejection of              
          the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C.  103 is reversed.                     


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007