Appeal No. 2004-2074
Application No. 09/862,946
The examiner finds, however, that Darrington teaches that
the panel (subject) discusses how it will “vocabularize” (answer-
page 5, paragraph 6) its evaluation before each sample is tested,
and concludes that it would have been obvious “to incorporate a
list of set attributes for the subject to pick from for the
advantage of standardizing and increasing the efficiency of the
evaluation process” (answer-page 5, paragraph 6).
For their part, appellants argue that Darrington fails to
disclose or suggest the specific attributes used to score the
taste attributes, and also fails to suggest that 4 to 6
attributes be used. With regard to independent claim 13,
appellants argue that Darrington does not suggest fragranced
products, let alone the specific attributes set forth in the
claims (principal brief-page 4).
With regard to the specific attributes used to score the
taste attributes, instant claim 1 calls for a plurality of
attributes “selected from the group consisting of. . .” and then
goes on to list 12 taste attributes. The taste attributes, such
as saltiness, sweetness, bitterness, sourness, etc. are/were well
known, and such notoriety, taken together with Darrington’s
disclosure of “obvious descriptions such as shiny, salty,
crumbly,. . .” (page 1 of the reference) would have made the use
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007