Appeal 2006-2358
Application 09/817,573
Appellants acknowledge that the instantly claimed invention provides
a similar process to that of the Wolf reference. That is, the wafer sheets are
baked, transported out of the baking oven, provided with a food product
(filler layer), then compressed and shaped (Br. 9). However, Appellants
argue there is a considerable difference between rolling or other pressing
provided by Wolf and the separately claimed steps required by the claimed
invention. Specifically Appellants argue that the terms "compressing" and
"shaping" as presented in claim 1 denote separate processing steps (Br. 9-
10).
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Contrary to the Appellants'
arguments, the language "compressing" and "shaping" does not require
separate processing steps. Appellants’ Specification on page 6 discloses that
the pressing device can be designed as a shaping device. Wolf describes
filled wafer strips that are passed under an equalizing roll that compresses
and shapes the wafer strip to a desired final thickness and distributes the
filling over the wafer surface (Wolf, col. 3, ll. 17-21). This passing of the
strip under the roll accomplishes both the compressing and shaping of the
filled wafer strip. As such, this disclosure of the Wolf reference meets the
argued claimed invention.
Appellants have not supported their arguments that the sugar content
defines the malleability of the wafer product and that the Biggs reference is
not properly combinable with Wolf. (Br. 10). The Examiner has responded
to Appellants' arguments by questioning the basis of these arguments
(Answer 7-8). Appellants have not responded to the Examiner's argument in
the responsive Brief. As such, these arguments are not persuasive.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013