Appeal No. 98-2667 Application No. 08/668,971 The examiner rejected claim 16 as obvious over the combined teachings of Madrazo and Mendoza. According to the examiner, Madrazo describes a process for nixtamalizing whole grains. Mendoza describes a process for nixtamalizing corn wherein the amount of alkaline solution varies dependent on the corn. Thus, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to determine the appropriate amount of alkaline solution through routine experimentation. (Examiner’s Answer, page 6). Madrazo example 5 describes a process for nixtamalizing corn in a closed vessel and adding calcium hydroxide in an amount of 0.6 (parts/100 parts of corn). Example 5 differs from claim 16 in that the amount of moisture described is 34%, which exceeds the claimed range of 2% to 20%. Madrazo discloses that the moisture content can vary within the range of 5 to 35%. (Column 4, lines 12-14). A rejection is proper when the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a minor difference in the range or value of a particular variable or when the ranges touch. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007