Appeal No. 1997-1617 Page 3
Application No. 08/220,808
Claims 11-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Giacone in view of Lees.
OPINION
After careful consideration of the issues raised in this
appeal and with the arguments of both appellants and the
examiner, we find that the examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 11-24 is not sustainable. However, we concur with the
examiner’s conclusion with respect to product claims 25-28.
Accordingly, we will sustain the § 103 rejection of claims 25-
28. Our reasoning follows.
Claims 11-24
The difficulty we have with the examiner’s position
regarding the appealed method claims stems from the fact that
the examiner has not shown where either of the applied
references teaches or suggests the extrusion pressure
conditions of the claimed process let alone the use of such
pressure conditions together with the claimed extrusion-
cooking temperature of at least 150°C. While Lees may
disclose the use of a higher pressure than Giacone as noted by
the examiner (supplemental answer mailed August 21, 1996,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007