Appeal 2007-1371
Application 10/326,103
Appellant states at page 10 of the Brief that “[t]he claims do not stand
or fall together.” However, Appellant has not set forth an argument that is
reasonably directed to either claim 16 or 17 separately. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together with claim 15.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in full agreement with the Examiner that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
The twenty-seven references applied by the Examiner in the rejection
of the appealed claims may seem to be somewhat of an overkill. However,
we must agree with the Examiner that the weight of the prior art evidence
underscores the obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Although we
find it unnecessary to apply all twenty-seven references to establish the
obviousness of the claimed food bar snack, the number of references in no
way militates against the legal conclusion of obviousness, as suggested by
Appellant. Both Deane and Snyder establish that it was known in the art to
formulate a food bar comprising nutritional and flavor ingredients which
approximate one or more courses of a conventional meal. While both
references utilize actual food components for providing the corresponding
flavor, and not flavorants for simulating the taste of the food, the Examiner
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013