Appeal 2007-1371
Application 10/326,103
Snyder, and Kelly do not disclose food bars having all the claimed
ingredients, Appellant has not demonstrated why it would have been
nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the food
compositions of the references with the claimed conventional ingredients.
In particular, Appellant points out that Deane teaches a meat bar
comprising meat but not Appellant’s oatmeal. However, Appellant does not
explain why it would have been nonobvious to substitute oatmeal along with
a meat flavorant for the meat of Deane. Also, Appellant maintains that
“Kelly teaches a food bar of cereal and flavor for Breakfast” but not
Appellant’s “meal-course bars with Balanced-Nutrition, and appetite-
control” (Br. 12, last sentence). However, Appellant has not established on
this record why it would have been nonobvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to incorporate known appetite-control ingredients in the food bar of
Kelly while providing the food with balanced nutrition. Appellant has not
refuted the Examiner’s finding that:
Starch, gums, fiber, fats, bitter substances, etc. are all known to
impart some appetite control, either as a stimulant or a
depressant [and that] the art taken as a whole discloses that
some ingredients such as fat can apparently have both
stimulative and depressant effects, depending on the nature of
the fat.
(Answer 9). Also, Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s factual
finding that “[t]he art taken as a whole also discloses that some ingredients
such as fiber, naturally occurring in cereal such as oats, would inherently
have an appetite suppressant effect” (id.).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013