Ex Parte Bazin et al - Page 10



               Appeal No. 2005-0191                                                                                                 
               Application No. 09/971,239                                                                                           
                       With the foregoing in mind, we find that representative claim 15 is directed to a                            
               method which comprises applying a granular starch product which has been hydrolyzed                                  
               to a “range surrounding” an “estimated oil absorption maximum hydrolysis level”.  To                                 
               that end, we point out that the specification states that oil absorption will “plateau after                         
               hydrolysis has proceeded to a certain extent, typically from about 30% to about 60%”                                 
               (page 4, lines 26-28).  It reasonably follows that granular starch which has been                                    
               hydrolyzed to a “range surrounding” an “estimated oil absorption maximum hydrolysis                                  
               level,” includes granular starch which has been hydrolyzed from less than about 30% to                               
               more than about 60%, and everything in between.  Thus, we find no difference between                                 
               the claimed method and the method disclosed by Kochan.2  That is, we agree with the                                  
               examiner that Kochan’s teachings of applying a granular starch product which has been                                
               hydrolyzed from about 45% to about 90%, anticipates the invention described in                                       
               representative claim 15 which encompasses the use of a granular starch product which                                 
               has been hydrolyzed from levels of about 45% to more than 60%.   See e.g., In re                                     
               Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(“claiming a                                     





                       2 Since we find that the granular starch product described in the claims is the                              
               same, or substantially the same, as the prior art products, it is reasonable to shift the                            
               burden to the appellants to establish that the granular starch products made using the                               
               claimed method differ from the starch products described in the applied prior art.  In re                            
               Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-334 (CCPA 1977) (“Where, as here,                                       
               the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are                                  
               produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an                                   
               applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess                              
               the characteristics of his claimed product”).                                                                        
                                                                10                                                                  




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007