Appeal No. 2003-1197
Application No. 09/699,218
CITED PRIOR ART
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following references:
Kincaid et al. (Kincaid) 5,382,443 Jan. 17, 1995
Leach 5,612,074 Mar. 18, 1997
The Wiley Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology, (1986) pp. 218-21. (Wiley).
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 to 3, 9 and 20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Kincaid, Leach and Wiley.3 (Answer, p. 3).
Appellants assert that each claim is separately patentable. (Brief, p. 2). We will
consider the claims separately only to the extent that separate arguments are of record in this
appeal. Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1999).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants concerning the above-noted rejection, we refer to the Answer and the Briefs.
DISCUSSION
The subject matter of the appealed invention relates to a food product comprising an
admixture of barley, flax, teff, and a binder which holds the admixture together.
3 The Examiner has indicated that the double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
(Answer, p. 3).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007