Appeal No. 96-0479
Application 08/124,063
Opinion
We have carefully considered the respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner.
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the examiner's rejections.
Claim 1 defines a food casing comprising a casing with a surface coating. The surface coating as
set forth in the claim is “a dispersion of bixin in a water-soluble and/or alcohol soluble film-forming agent”
comprising, inter alia, a cellulose derivative or a protein. Appellants disclose in the specification that it is
“essential to the present invention that the bixin be resinated with the film forming agent,” i.e., the bixin must
be dispersed in the film forming agent (specification: p. 18). Appellants have defined “dispersion” as
meaning that “bixin particles are resinated or coated with the film forming agent” (specification: p. 18).
The examiner rejected claims 1-10, 12, 14-16, 18-21 and 25-34 for obviousness over
Hettiarachchy in view of Winkler and Remer. Hettiarachchy discloses a stabilized bixin pigment prepared
by cross-linking bixin or norbixin with a hydrocolloid such as a cellulose derivative through a polyvalent
cation bridge by either hydrogen or ionic bonding (col. 2, lines 4-15). The examiner made a finding that
the bixin pigment disclosed in Hettiarachchy is “entrapped in the matrix of the hydrocolloid” or forms a
“dispersion” in the hydrocolloid (paper no. 6, pp. 4-5) and concluded that it would have been obvious to
use the stabilized bixin disclosed by Hettiarachchy as a surface coating for food casings. We cannot agree
with the examiner.
The hydrocolloid disclosed by Hettiarachchy appears to be a component of a complex molecule.
Hettiarachchy does not disclose or suggest using the hydrocolloid as a film forming agent. Furthermore,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007