Ex parte YIGAL PELEG et al. - Page 4

                Appeal No. 95-1168                                                                                                             
                Application 07/951,992                                                                                                         

                form a tough, plastic, flexible, untempered pastry shortening which is functional over the temperature                         
                range of 50E to 90E F for pastry preparation (col. 3, lines 6-42).  The “extrudable shortening mass                            
                can be extruded or ‘filled’ directly into user packages in the form of blocks, sheets or other desired                         
                shape and is ready for immediate use” (col. 3, lines 46-49).  According to Kriz, the presence or                               
                absence of water in the shortening is a matter of choice.  However, Kriz states that                                           
                         the pastry shortening can contain 0 to about 15 parts (and usually about 1 to 10 parts)                               
                         by weight water per 100 parts of shortening without detracting from functionality.                                    
                         When water is employed, an emulsifier such as mono- and/or diglycerides is usually                                    
                         employed to maintain a dispersion between the aqueous and organic phases. [Col. 5,                                    
                         lines 27-33.]                                                                                                         
                                                              The Rejections                                                                   
                         Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Petrizzelli.  While                         
                the examiner recognizes that Petrizzelli discloses a higher range of starch in the dough than that                             
                recited in the claim on appeal and that Petrizzelli does not teach using starch to replace a portion of                        
                the fat component of the dough, nevertheless, the examiner concludes that “it would have been                                  
                obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the amount                          
                of starch if so desired since the starch of Petrizzelli is performing the same function as the starch of                       
                Petrizzelli while providing a reduced fat dough” (final rejection, 2, Paper No. 5).                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007