Appeal 2006-1306
Application 10/218,991
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-14, 16-22, 24-27 and 32-33 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Reed.
2. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Mentink.
OPINION
Appellants do not separately argue the claims in their Brief or Reply
Brief. Accordingly, we select claims 1 and 32 as representative claims on
which to render our decision.
CLAIM 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of manufacturing a confectionary
product including the steps: (1) “providing a confectionary center”, (2)
“heating at least one polyol to at least the one polyol’s melting point to
produce a molten polyol”, (3) “coating the confectionary center in a coating
step with at least one layer of the molten polyol, wherein the coating
comprises less than 5 percent by weight water during the coating step.”
The Examiner rejects claim 1 under § 102(b) over Reed (Answer 4).
The Examiner states that Reed discloses a melting point for xylitol of “93°C,
or even 61°C for the metastable form” and a confectionary manufacturing
method which includes heating a xylitol mixture “up to about 200°F, or
93°C” (Answer 4). From such disclosure the Examiner contends that, since
Reed “disclose[s] that the preferred polyol (xylitol) had a melting point of
93°C, or even 61°C for the metastable form . . . , and also heating the xylitol
to about 200°F, or 93°C, before applying it” (Answer 5), the polyol (i.e.,
xylitol) must be in molten form.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007