Appeal No. 2004-1451
Application No. 09/360,262
together" (last paragraph). Accordingly, all the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 1 and, since appellants do not
present separate substantive arguments for the separately
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we will limit our
consideration to the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the subject matter of claim 1 on appeal is
described in the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in the
Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for
emphasis only.
Redding, one of the present inventors, describes, like
appellants, a process of modifying the physical characteristics
of dietary fiber material by applying an abrupt pressure change
with a piston device to the dietary fiber material dispersed in a
liquid media. As pointed out by the examiner, Redding expressly
teaches that the abrupt pressure treatment modifies a variety of
properties of the fiber material, e.g., disintegration and
solubility, thermal profile, turbidity profile and viscosity (see
column 7, lines 1-12). While appellants contend that "the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007