Appeal No. 1999-0140
Application No. 08/622,953
rejection nevertheless could not be sustained. This is
because the process resulting from the examiner’s proposed
combination of Hasman and Fick would not correspond to the
appellants’ claimed process and would not yield a butter (or
fat) of the type defined in the appealed product claims.
Specifically, Hasman’s product and process differ in a
number of respects from the product and process claimed by the
appellants. For example, patentee’s product has no more than
about 45 percent trans-oleic acid (i.e., trans-configured
elaidic acid) content (e.g., see lines 49-50 in column 1 of
the Hasman patent) rather than at least about 65 weight
percent as required by the appealed product claims.
Additionally, Hasman contains no teaching or suggestion that
his product has a fully saturated fat content of not greater
than about 10 percent by weight as required by the product
claims on appeal. On the contrary, product runs 1 and 2
disclosed by Hasman resulted in a fully saturated fat content
of 26.6 weight percent and 24.7 weight percent as explained by
the appellants on pages 15-16 of the brief and page 5 of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007