Appeal No. 2006-3157
Application No. 10/417,608
which the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the examiner explains that
claim 1 (Answer, p. 3):
[D]oes not differentiate the interior dough and the surface of the dough
composition. The claim is contradicting because it recites that the interior
dough does not brown normally and yet the surface browns normally;
however, there is no distinct structural difference between the interior
dough and the surface of the dough composition. The dough composition
comprises the interior dough; thus, the surface is part of the interior dough.
Claims 8, 16, and 21 are indefinite for the same reason. See Answer, p. 3.
In claim 1, it is clear that “a surface of the dough composition” is the exterior
surface of the dough composition. See Brief, p. 11 (“A surface of the dough composition
refers to an exterior surface of the dough composition.”). Likewise, it is clear that “a
dough surface” and “the dough surface” in claim 8, “a surface of the dough” in claim 16,
and “dough surface” in claim 21 refer to the exterior surface of the dough composition.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, may be
overcome by amending claims 1, 8, 16, and 21 as follows:7
In claim 1, line 6, amend “a surface of the dough composition” to read --the
exterior surface of the dough composition--.
In claim 8, line 2, amend “a dough surface” to read --the exterior surface of the
dough composition--. In claim 8, line 4, amend “the dough surface” to read --the exterior
surface of the dough composition--. In claim 8, lines 4-5, amend “the dough surface” to
read --the exterior surface of the dough composition--.
In claim 16, line 10, amend “a surface of the dough” to read --the exterior surface
of the dough composition--.
7 We refer to claims 1, 8, 16, and 21 in the Appendix to the Brief.
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007