Appeal 2006-2358
Application 09/817,573
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellants regarding the above noted rejections, we make
reference to the Answer (mailed July 16, 2003) for the Examiner's reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the Briefs (filed April 28, 2003 and
September 16, 2003) for Appellants' arguments thereagainst.
We shall sustain the above noted rejections. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as obvious
over Wolf and Biggs.
The Examiner has found that Wolf discloses a method of making
filled wafer strips. The method comprises the steps of placing a single layer
of wafer sheets on a suitable conveyor to form a continuous wafer sheet,
covering the layer with a filling material and then covering the filling
material layer with a second layer of wafer sheets. The Examiner asserts
Wolf does not disclose the sugar content of the wafer, providing an outer
coating, and the type of filling materials (Answer 4). The Examiner asserts
Biggs discloses a wafer product that comprises 28.7% sugar, and the wafer
product has a coating.
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to adjust the
sugar content of the wafer depending on the degree of sweetness and the
type of filling material use. The Examiner also concluded that it would have
been obvious to coat the wafer product with the coating material as taught by
Biggs to obtain a different flavor or taste. The Examiner further concluded
that it would have been obvious to use any type of filling dependent on the
flavor and tastes desired (Answer 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013