Appeal No. 2006-0930
Application No. 09/905,540
brief at 8.) We disagree. The prior art reference, namely
Zimmerman, provides motivation independent of the disclosure in
the appellant’s specification. Zimmerman’s disclosure is
replete with teachings highlighting the advantages of providing
5 the snack chips as described therein. (¶¶0002-0021 at 1-2.) It
is our judgment that these teachings constitute the motivation,
suggestion, or teaching required to support a rejection based on
a combination of references within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
10
Order
In sum, it is ORDERED that:
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and
17 through 20 as unpatentable over the combined teachings of
15 Zimmerman and the appellant’s admitted prior art in the form of
Snack-A-Dip® (Salsa) is AFFIRMED.
The decision of the examiner to reject appealed claims 1,
3, 5, 6, and 17 through 20 is AFFIRMED.
20
25
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007