Appeal No. 1997-1617 Page 4
Application No. 08/220,808
pages 5-8 and supplemental answer mailed November 20, 1996,
pages 2 and 3), the examiner has not shown where Lees teaches
the use of an extrusion pressure of at least 45 bar as
claimed. Moreover, as generally pointed out by appellants
(brief, page 8), Lees generally suggests the use of an
extrusion-cooking temperature of 90-210°F, a temperature lower
than the temperature ranges disclosed by Giacone and called
for by the appealed method claims. Hence, even if the cited
references were combined, the examiner has not shown how the
combined teachings thereof would have suggested modifying
Giacone so as to use both a temperature and pressure as
required by appellants’ claimed process.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness of the
claimed method. Because we reverse on this basis, we need not
reach the issue of the sufficiency of the asserted showing of
unexpected results in the specification (see, e.g., brief,
pages 27-29). See In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d
1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Claims 25-28
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007