Appeal 2007-2060
Application 09/945,318
REJECTION (5): Claims 9, 11, 33-35, 37, and 38.
The Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s determination that:
[I]t would have been an obvious to modify the walls of
Beer to provide a translucent bag or window, depending on if it
was desirable for a consumer to view the packaged product
since Galomb teaches providing translucent walls or even a
transparent window for a cereal bag may be done if desired for
viewing the product. .…
[I]t would have been obvious to modify Beer and include a non-
particulate product with a water activity of at least 0.1 and the
cereal with a water activity of 0.2-0.4 since it would provide the
convenience of having a package holding two items that are
stored separately but are eaten together. (Compare Answer 11-
12, with Br. 19).
Rather, the Appellants rely on the same arguments raised in the
REJECTION (1) above. Therefore, based on the factual findings set forth
in the Answer and above, we determine that the preponderance of evidence
weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness of the subject matter claimed
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REJECTION (6): Claims 16, 17, 21, 22, 43, 45-47, and 51-57.
The Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s determination that:
[I]t it would have been obvious to further .modify Beer
and include whole grains, such as oat or rice and soy flour,
since Thompson et al. '438 teach using the grains and soybeans
in combination will provide an improve nutritional
formula, and by using whole grains, the cost of ingredients is
lower. It would have been further obvious to select an irregular
shape, depending on the desired form of puffed cereal, since
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013