Appeal 2006-2158
Application 09/853,391
3. Claims 8-12 and 14-29 rejected over the above combined
references as applied to claims 3-7 and 13 (Valentine) and
claims 1, 2, and 102 (Ishida or Chuang in view of Sweet’n Low
(Tradename) (patent 3,625,711) to Eisenstadt and Kishimoto)
and further in view of Menzi.
4. Claims 30-85 and 93-98 rejected over the references of the
above rejections as applied to the above claims 1-29 and 102
above, and further in view of Kampinga.
The Brief addresses the rejections as presented in the Final Office
Action. There is no Reply Brief.
As can be seen from a comparison of the rejections of the Final Office
Action and the Answer, there are a number of discrepancies.
As a first matter, the Answer rearranges the rejections both as to the
claims rejected and the references applied.
As a second matter, the Answer rejects claims 3-13. Those claims
were not listed in the statements of rejection presented in the Final Office
Action.
As a third matter, the Answer includes “(patent 3,625,711) to
Eisenstadt” in the statements of the rejections and lists this patent in the
“Prior Art Record” section. The Examiner relies upon evidence within the
patent to Eisenstadt to support the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 102. See the
Answer at page 4, lines 7-9. The Examiner has, therefore, introduced new
evidence into the rejection.
As a fourth matter, “Sweetener packet made by Safeway Stores” is
listed in the “Prior Art of Record” section of the Answer and is discussed in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013