Appeal No. 1997-1617 Page 6
Application No. 08/220,808
Here, the evidence adduced by the examiner, particularly Lees
(pages 2 and 3) , teaches a prior art breadcrumb product that1
may include up to 8 % by weight shortening by weight of total
flour as well as other ingredients such as water and sugar
which product appears to substantially correspond to the
product defined by product-by-process claim 25. 2
We are mindful of the evidence furnished by appellants at
pages 5-9 of the specification and the arguments furnished at
pages 29 and 30 of the brief. However, we do not agree with
appellants’ viewpoint that the furnished specification test
results establish that the claimed product has characteristics
that differentiate over the prior art product of Lees. In
this regard, we note that the crispy texture referred to in
the table on page 8 of the specification was obtained with a
specified fat content of 9.5% when the product was extruded at
90 bar pressure and temperatures of at least 175°C. The
1Since Giacone is not necessary to our affirmance of the
examiner’s rejection of product claims 25-28, we will not
discuss the additional teachings thereof relative to those
claims.
2We observe that claim 25 does not require hydrogenated
palm oil by virtue of the reference to claim 11, the latter
claim not specifying a particular fat.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007