Appeal No. 2003-1870
Application No. 07/770,054
The references set forth below are relied upon by the examiner
as evidence of obviousness:
Polizzano 4,717,570 Jan. 5, 1988
Olinger et al. (Olinger) 4,772,482 Sep. 20, 1988
Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Polizzano in view of Olinger. On pages 3 and 4
of the Answer, the examiner’s position is described as follows:
Polizzano discloses a process of making a
cookie which comprises using several of the
claimed ingredients. The cookies can contain
maltitol and other sugar alcohols, and the
method of making contemplates the addition of
fat or shortening (see entire document,
especially column 5, lines 2-9, 25-32, and 54-
68).
The claims differ in that they require the
maltitol to replace the fat and they require
the use of an intense sweetener and
polydextrose.
Olinger et al disclose the use of an
intense sweetener (e.g. aspartame) and
polydextrose in a baked good (see entire
document, especially Table V and VIII).
It would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
invention was made, to add an intense sweetener
and polydextrose to the process of making a
baked good as taught by Polizzano because
Olinger et al teach that they function in such
formulations.
As for the limitation of using maltitol to
replace/substitute fat, Polizzano discloses the
use of maltitol in food products. It is not
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007