Appeal No. 2004-1508
Application No. 09/443,559 Page 5
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2002).
Appellant does not contest the examiner’s determination that
James suggests the product of representative claim 1 including a
seamless food structure that is continuous and surrounds a
filling sealed there within except for an alleged lack of
teaching to employ a “flowable” filling. Nor does appellant
contest the examiner’s factual findings regarding the well known
use of flowable fillings in doughnuts. Rather, appellant
maintains that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would not have
been motivated to replace a sausage filling as disclosed by James
with a flowable food material to make the present invention”
(brief, page 14). We disagree with appellant principally because
the disclosure of James is not confined to a sausage filled food
product. As correctly and completely explained by the examiner
at pages 4-6, 7 and 8 of the answer, James (page 1, lines 68-72)
discloses the use of “a variety of forms” of filler and teaches
the formation of, inter alia, sweet products, such as a filled
doughnut (page 1, lines 58-68). We agree with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would have been led to employ conventional flowable fillings,
such as a fruit or jelly filling, that are compatible with a
sweet product, such as the doughnut option of James. In this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007