Appeal No. 2004-2074
Application No. 09/862,946
of at least two of the taste attributes listed in claim 1
obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to Darrington failing to describe at least 4 to
6 attributes to be tested, we agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious to request testers to rate any number of
taste attributes. Further, as noted by the examiner, at
paragraph 4 of page 8 of the answer, appellants offer no evidence
of criticality to the range “4 to about 6.” In view of such a
lack of disclosure as to criticality, and the known number of
taste attributes, it would have been obvious to ask testers to
evaluate products as to any number of taste attributes.
With regard to appellants’ argument that there is no
teaching, by Darrington, of “fragranced products,” Darrington
does disclose the testing for “aroma,” which would clearly
suggest the testing of “fragrance products.”
Appellants next argue that Darrington does not suggest
having the panelist manipulate the various recited attributes,
which are then simultaneously put into a single score that the
panelist can visualize; and then adjust the attributes as they
see fit based upon the automatic feedback provided by the claimed
invention. Rather, appellants argue, Darrington discloses that
the products under test are scored on open line intensity scales
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007