Appeal No. 2004-1794
Application No. 09/626,039 Page 6
would have been substituting one known caramel coating for
another for the same purpose” (answer, page 5) falls short in
fairly establishing both a suggestion and reasonable expectation
of success regarding the examiner’s proposed modification of the
susceptor materials of Fisher based on the disparate teachings of
Singh and Shoop with respect to the compositions and methods of
applying same as disclosed in those latter patents.
In this regard, the examiner must provide specific reasons
or suggestions for combining the particular teachings and
disclosures of the applied references. The examiner's assertion
that the proposed modification of Fisher is merely the
replacement of one caramel coating with another does not serve to
identify a convincing and particularized suggestion, reason or
motivation to combine the references or make the proposed
modification in a manner so as to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1359, 47 USPQ2d
1453, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In this regard, the HAA containing
coatings of Singh and Shoop are described by those latter patents
as food coating materials. Singh teaches that whole meats should
be subjected to a gelatin purge and predried before coating the
surface of such a cooked meat product with the pyrolysis coating
material. Against that background, the examiner’s mere assertion
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007