Appeal No. 2002-2333
Application No. 09/741,467
spray atomizing said mixture in a spray dryer to produce
said dietary fiber composition.
The examiner relies upon the following reference as evidence
of obviousness:
Kuipers et al. 4,315,954 Feb. 16, 1982
(Kuipers)
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a dietary fiber
composition produced by the recited process. The process entails
cooking a protein slurry comprising calcium caseinate in an
evaporator to produce a slurry of cross-linked matrices of
protein. Dietary fiber is then added to the cross-linked
matrices of protein to form a mixture, which is then spray
atomized in a spray dryer to produce the claimed composition.
Appealed claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kuipers.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we find
ourselves in agreement with the position espoused by appellant
that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection.
While it is true that product-by-process claims define a
product, and not the process by which the product is produced,
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007