Appeal 2006-1306
Application 10/218,991
Appellants argue that they have defined “molten polyol” in their
Specification at page 5 to mean “when sufficiently heated, a given polyol
will melt and will remain in a molten state until it is allowed to cool to a
temperature below its melting point” (Br. 4-5). Moreover, Appellants define
“conventional non-molten coatings” as “any coating substance that is not in
a molten state, but dissolved or dispersed in an aqueous media . . . .” (Br. 5).
Appellants further argue that the plain meaning of “molten” means, “made
by melting” or “liquefied by heat” (Br. 5), whereas “syrup” is “a solution
formed by mixing a solid (i.e., sugar) and a liquid (i.e., water)” (Br. 5).
Appellants also argue that appealed claims 16, 26, and 27 distinguish
“molten polyols” from “non-molten polyols” under the doctrine of claim
differentiation (Br. 6).
Based on these aforenoted arguments, it is Appellants’ position that
Reed discloses heating polyol syrup (i.e., a solution of a polyol and water) to
“200°F” (Br. 9). Moreover, Appellants argue that Reed does not disclose
the temperature range with “sufficient specificity” to anticipate the claims.
Regarding the “sufficient specificity” of Reed’s temperature range,
Appellants argue as follows: (1) if “polyol” is interpreted to include xylitol
in claim 1, then a narrow melt temperature range is defined in claim 1 (i.e.,
93-94.5°C), (2) Reed discloses a broad temperature range (i.e., 100-200°F)
and (3) Appellants have shown that unexpected results are achieved using a
molten polyol as the coating (i.e., molten polyols can be sprayed onto
confectionary items without the repeated cycles of spraying and drying
associated with syrups, and molten polyols have a lower water content than
found in conventional non-molten coatings due to liquefying by heat rather
than moisture) (Reply Br. 3-4).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007