Appeal 2007-1183
Application 10/281,706
the claim language “comprising” encompasses the three recited ingredients
as well as all of the non-specified ingredients, it cannot be gainsaid that
claim 8 embraces an untold plethora of puree compositions. Moreover, as
explained by the Examiner, it would have been a matter of obviousness for
one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate puree compositions having a
wide variety of relative amounts of water, thickener and fruits and/or
vegetables.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results. While
Appellants state in the Summary at page 5 of the Brief that Examples 1-4 of
the Specification show that “the composition unexpectedly displays
excellent stability characteristics and no flavor loss when kept sealed and at
ambient temperature,” Appellants have not discussed the particulars of the
examples in any manner, let alone with the requisite degree of specificity for
establishing unexpected results relative to the closest prior art. It is not
within the province of this Board to ferret out Specification data that
supports Appellants’ argument for nonobviousness.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(iv)(effective Sept.
13, 2004).
AFFIRMED
cam
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013