Appeal 2007-3418
Application 11/032,390
coating to the potato slice (see factual finding (4) listed above).
Additionally, we note that Villwock teaches the well known use of aqueous
enrobing slurries in the prior art to deposit a desired amount of coating on
french fry products (see factual finding (5) listed above). Accordingly, we
agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in this art to use either aqueous enrobing slurries or dry coating to
deposit an amount of solids on the french fry product.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the rejection of claims 24-30 under § 103(a) over Murray in view of
Villwock. The decision of the Examiner 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
cam
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun, LLP
233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 6300
Sears Tower
Chicago, IL 60606
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: September 9, 2013