Appeal 2007-0726
Application 10/264,561
According to Appellants:
The claimed preblended mixture comprises a
pregelatinized waxy starch which, upon hydration, provides an
extensible surface film prior to heating and temporarily traps
moisture below the expandable film surface upon heating. The
raw potato starch helps reduce, control, or eliminate bubbling
and provides a non-flaky, crunchy, chip-like texture. In
addition, the raw potato starch not only promotes crunchiness
and a chip-like texture, but also reduces oil pick-up or
absorption during frying. See paragraphs [0034] and [0040].
Applicants' composition and method produce an expanded,
cellular coating which has a crispy texture without the need for
a baking mold.
(Id.)
Applying the law to the facts of this case, we determine that
Appellants have not shown that the use of pregelatinized waxy starch and
raw potato starch in the starch/flour mixture of Lanner is more than the
predictable use of prior art food ingredients according to their established
functions.
The prior art expressly or inferentially teaches functions or purposes
for adding pregelatinized waxy starch and raw potato starch which are
similar to Appellants’ purposes, i.e., to control expansion and bubbling and
affect taste and texture. However, we acknowledge that, as argued by
Appellants, the applied references do not disclose all of Appellants’ reasons
for adding unmodified pregelatinized waxy starch and raw potato starch to
the dry mixture (Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 1-2). For instance, the references do not
specifically discuss the moisture trapping ability of the extensible surface
film created by the hydration of pregelatinized waxy starch prior to heating
(Reply Br. 5). However, that the applied prior art does not disclose all of
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013