Appeal No. 2006-1027
Application No. 09/865,074
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As discussed above, Willard does
disclose and teach the degree of pregelatinization, viscosity, and water absorption as
result effective variables. Furthermore, Willard teaches that bubble formation can be
controlled by the “affinity for water of the gelatinized starches” (col. 8, ll. 3-8).
Accordingly, the control of bubble formation by varying the water absorption capabilities
of the starch components of Willard would have been well within the ordinary skill in this
art. Finally, appellants have not presented any convincing reasoning why the teachings
of Holm would not be considered by one of ordinary skill in this art, whether a baking
step was included or excluded from the processing.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellants’
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in
favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a). Therefore we affirm the
rejection of claims 24, 26 and 28-32 under section 103(a) over Willard in view of Holm.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007