Appeal No. 2006-0064 Παγε 17
Application No. 09/155,740
17 at page 4 of the reply brief in discussing the Hsieh
reference, that commentary does not amount to a separate argument
as to either of those claims with respect to the obviousness
rejection over the combined teachings of the applied references.
Consequently, we shall also affirm the examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2-5, 9-13 and 17 for the reasons set forth
above and in the answer.
Regarding appellants’ third claim grouping (claims 6-8 and
14-16), we select claim 6 as the representative claim. We note
that appellants do not contend that the use of the process of
Reznik on other fruits, such as an apple piece as recited in
claim 6, amounts to another patentable distinction over the
applied prior art.7 Rather, appellants argue that representative
claim 6 should be separately patentable because of the
relationship between the size of the fruit and roller spacing
required by claim 6. However, Reznik teaches or suggests that
fruit size and roller spacing are result effective variables for
the fissuring of the fruit. See, e.g., column 3, line 49 through
column 4, line 10 of Reznik. Consequently, we agree with the
examiner’s obviousness assessment in that the determination of
7 In this regard, we note that Hsieh discloses solute addition to a variety of dried
fruits, including dates and apples. See column 3, lines 49-56 of Hsieh.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007