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