Appeal 2006-0891
Application 10/224,886
Kuechle also suggests using low speed mixing at less than 36 rpm.
Moreover, Appellant admits that mixing techniques that conventionally use
low shear are known (Br. 22).
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 18 and dependent
claims 19 and 21 grouped therewith. Appellant has not sufficiently rebutted
the prima facie case.
Claim 22
With respect to claim 22, Appellant argues that there is no teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to deviate from the mixing procedure described by
Kuechle. This argument is not persuasive because no deviation from the
mixing procedure of Kuechle is required to meet the limitations of the claim.
Kuechle suggests combining flour, water, fat (shortening), and a leavening
system (Kuechle, col. 3, ll. 47-48) by a mixing process including low speed
and high speed mixing steps. Kuechle suggests using non-encapsulated
acidic chemical leavening agent and encapsulated basic chemical leavening
agent (Kuechle, col. 8, ll. 28-42). Kuechle further suggests that uniform
distribution is obtained during low speed mixing (Kuechle, col. 11, ll. 31-
33).
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 22 that has not been
sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007