Appeal No. 1006-1198
Application No. 10/639,936
of a waffle in a waffle iron is well known in the art and to arrive of the cooking of the two
aliquots of batter at separate times to form a filled waffle product would have been obvious as
explained above. The elevation to form a filling having water activity that is lower than the outer
batter casing would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings
of Haynes-Jacobson. We agree.
We note that we need only to consider claim 54 in this appeal because appellants’
specific arguments as set forth on pages 15 through 19 are directed to claim 54. Appellants do
not provide arguments regarding the patentability of any of the dependent claims. We note that
appellants discuss the examiner’s admission regarding certain dependent claims on page 17 of
the brief, but do not provide arguments regarding why such claims are patentable with the
applied art. Appellants’ arguments specifically relate to claim 54.
II. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 53 through 73 as being obvious over Haynes-
Jacobson is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007