Appeal No. 2004-2017
Application 09/501,559
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a process for improving the
hydration characteristics of guar gum powder by including the step of extruding guar
gum splits prior to grinding same (Brief, page 2). Appellants state that the rejected
claims stand or fall together (Brief, page 4). Therefore, in accordance with the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2000), we select one claim from each ground of
rejection (i.e., claims 1 and 3) and decide the grounds of rejection in this appeal on the
basis of these claims alone. See also In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d 1379, 1383, 63
USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Representative independent claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A method of manufacturing a powder having improved hydration
characteristics, the method comprising the steps of:
(a) hydrating guar gum splits;
(b) processing the hydrated splits, said processing step including the
substeps, in either order, of flaking the splits and extruding the splits;
(c) grinding said processed splits into a powder; and
(d) drying the powder.
In addition to the admitted prior art found in appellants’ specification, the
examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of obviousness:
Rutenberg et al. (Rutenberg) 4,269,975 May 26, 1981
Dino 5,646,093 Jul. 08, 1997
Harris 5,990,052 Nov. 23, 1999
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007