Appeal 2007-2488
Application 10/081,483
1 The application was filed on 22 February 2002. The real party in
2 interest is said to be Unilever Bestfoods, North America, a division of
3 Conopco, Inc. (Br. at 3).
4 The following U.S. patents were relied upon by the Examiner:
5 Name Patent No. Issue Date
6 Berg, Jr. 3,947,567 30 March 1976
7 Rudick 5,135,137 4 August 1992
8 Kohler 5,143,288 01 Sept. 1992
9 Hoffman 5,747,079 05 May 1998
10 Denton 5,971,357 26 Oct. 1999
11
12 In addition, the following publications were relied upon by the
13 Examiner:
14 Name Publication No. Pub. Date
15 Frutin I WO 98/36671 27 August 1998
16 Frutin II WO 97/21605 19 June 1997
17 Bergman SE 9801752 (abstract) 19 Nov. 1999
18 The following six grounds of rejection are appealed:1
19 Claims 1-3, 5-8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
20 being anticipated by Frutin I “as evidenced by Rudick” (Answer at 3-4).
1 Farr submits that “it is not clear on the record as to why the Final
Rejection is proper” since Rudick is said to have been made of record for the
first time in the final rejection. (Br. at 7). Whether or not a final rejection is
proper is not a ground for appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences but rather is an issue that can be raised by petition under 37
C.F.R. § 1.181. See also MPEP 706.07(c) and 1002.03(c).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013