Appeal No. 2005-2436
Application No. 09/827,686
product having a water content preferably in the range of 2-6% by
weight.
Regarding the examiner's separate rejections under § 103, we
refer to the Examiner's Answer. We observe that appellants base
no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness to rebut
the prima facie case of obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007