Appeal No. 2006-1478
Application No. 09/970,014
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Swisher in view of Lowe and
Errass. 1
We refer to the brief and reply brief as well as to the
answer for a complete discussion of the opposing viewpoints
expressed by the appellants and by the examiner concerning the
above noted rejection.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain this
rejection.
The appellants and the examiner agree that appealed claim 1
distinguishes from Swisher by virtue of the limitation regarding
carrageenan. The composition disclosed by Swisher (i.e., salad
dressing in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion) contains no
carrageenan. Similarly, the appellants and the examiner agree
that the Swisher patent contains no disclosure at all regarding
the particular stability feature recited in claim 1. That is,
1The here rejected claims have not been separately argued with
any reasonable specificity in the manner required by 37 CFR §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 13, 2004). Therefore, in assessing
the merits of the rejection before us, we will focus on
independent claim 1 (i.e., the broadest claim on appeal) with
which all other claims will stand or fall.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007