Examiner's obviousness rejection not sustained in Ex parte LYKOMITROS
Ex parte LYKOMITROS -->
The Examiner's determination is not well-founded. As correctly pointed out by Appellants, "food starches are not mentioned anywhere in Strong as possible 'carbohydrates' to be used in the final coating" (App. Br. 15). Furthermore, the rejection of claim 27 would be improper even if Strong's carbohydrate disclosure were considered to teach or suggest food starches. This is because the Examiner has given no explanation why an artisan would have provided Strong's food center with the claimed first heat- susceptible coating (e.g., sugar) followed by non heat-susceptible coatings (e.g., food starches).
The Examiner's determination is not well-founded. As correctly pointed out by Appellants, "food starches are not mentioned anywhere in Strong as possible 'carbohydrates' to be used in the final coating" (App. Br. 15). Furthermore, the rejection of claim 27 would be improper even if Strong's carbohydrate disclosure were considered to teach or suggest food starches. This is because the Examiner has given no explanation why an artisan would have provided Strong's food center with the claimed first heat- susceptible coating (e.g., sugar) followed by non heat-susceptible coatings (e.g., food starches).
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 1:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home