Appeal No. 2006-3157
Application No. 10/417,608
this appeal, the patentability of claims 2, 3, 5-13, and 16-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
stands or falls with the patentability of claim 1.
As for the rejection of claims 4, 14, 15, and 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
appellant argues the patentability of claims 4, 14, and 15 separately and the patentability
of claims 27-29 as a group. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, the patentability of
each of claims 4, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) stands or falls alone, and the
patentability of claims 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) stands or falls with the
patentability of claim 27. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
Background
Chemical leavening systems are often included in refrigerator stable dough
compositions and generally include two chemical leavening agents, a basic agent and an
acidic agent. These react during baking to produce a gas that leavens and expands (or
“proofs”) the dough. Specification, p. 1, lines 23-26.
During refrigerated storage of these dough compositions, the two chemical
leavening agents can contact each other and react prematurely causing premature gas
release and premature expansion of the dough composition. When the dough is packaged
in a low-pressure, substantially air-tight package, an undesired result of this premature
evolution of leavening gas can be expansion of the package. Specification, p. 1 line 27-p.
2, line 2.
Attempts have been made to prevent undesired, premature contact between the
chemical leavening agents. One technique is to encapsulate the basic agent with a
material that acts as a barrier between the agent and the dough composition.
Specification, p. 2, lines 3-9. A well encapsulated and stable basic agent was thought to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007