Appeal No. 94-2895
Application 07/908,728
skill in the art to use the fragmented amylose hydrolysate of Battista as a fat/oil replacer in
food formulations in light of the other applied prior art. More particularly, the examiner
expresses on page 7 of the Answer the viewpoint that “Battista et al teach a starch
hydrolyzate [sic], which in view of Morehouse, is usable in food products as a fat replacer.”
We do not agree.
The Battista publication constitutes a research report on several novel
microcrystalline colloidal products made from a variety of materials including cellulose,
amylose, collagen, nylon, and chrysotile mineral silicates. While Battista discloses
hydrolyzing and disintegrating amylose to thereby produce an unusually stable amylose
gel, there is utterly no disclosure in this publication of using the amylose gel as a food
additive generally or a fat/oil replacer specifically. We recognize that the other applied
references, such as Morehouse, teach starch hydrolysates generally as fat/oil replacers.
Nevertheless, we agree completely with the appellants’ position that “[a] person skilled in
the art would have no motivation to combine Battista’s teachings with those of Cain,
Morehouse, Anter, or Lenchin, because none of them give any hint that there might be any
advantage in using a fragmented starch hydrolysate for fat replacement” (Brief, pages 12-
13; emphasis in original). Stated otherwise, the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007