Ex Parte PODUBRIN et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2002-0523                                                                                     
              Application No. 09/117,918                                                                               

              wherein R1CO is an acyl group having from 6 to 10 carbon atoms, a mixture of glycerol                    
              and a methyl ester of the fatty acid of formula I, and triglycerides derived from the fatty              
              acid of formula I in a molar ratio of vegetable oil to transesterifying component of 1:(2.5              
              to 3.5) so that the di-/triglyceride mixture has a ratio of diglycerides to triglycerides of             
              from 1:3 to 1:6, a monoglyceride content of less than 5% by weight, and a cloud point                    
              below +6°C.                                                                                              

                     The prior art references relied upon by the examiner are:                                         
              Menz                                      3,658,555                   Apr. 25,   1972                    
              Barsky                                    GB 820,270                  Sept. 16, 1959                     

              Grounds of Rejection                                                                                     
                     Claims 7-10, 13, 16-19, 22, 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                     
              as obvious over Barsky in view of Menz.                                                                  
                     We reverse this rejection.                                                                        


                                                    DISCUSSION                                                         
                     In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given consideration to the                       
              appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied references, and to the respective                   
              positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner.                                                
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                     
              the appellants regarding the noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s                       
              Answer for the examiner’s reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellants’                  
              Brief for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.  As a consequence of our review, we                    
              make the determinations which follow.                                                                    


                                                          2                                                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007