Appeal No. 2005-0191
Application No. 09/971,239
above, the starch products recited in the appellants’ claims are in a product-by-process
format. To that end, we direct attention to the teachings of the specification (p. 10, lines
27-31) that the “estimated fluid absorption optimum hydrolysis level” may range in some
cases from about 30% to about 50%. Thus, it reasonably follows that granular starch
which has been hydrolyzed to a “range surrounding” an “estimated fluid absorption
optimum hydrolysis level,” includes granular starch which has been hydrolyzed from
less than about 30% to more than about 50%. On this record, we find no difference
between the starch granules and level of hydrolysis described by Kochan and the starch
granules and level of hydrolysis which are described in representative claim 27.
Accordingly, we find that Kochan’s teachings of applying a granular starch which has
been hydrolyzed from about 45% to about 95%, anticipates the invention described in
representative claim 27 which includes a method of applying starch granules which
have been hydrolyzed from levels less than about 30% to more than about 50%. In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; see also, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1578,
16 USPQ2d at 1936; Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., 814 F.2d at 632-
33, 2 USPQ2d at 1054.
The appellants argue that representative claim 27 includes the step of
“determining an estimated fluid absorption optimum hydrolysis level,” which is not taught
by Kochan. According to the appellants, the term “fluid” in claim 27 is defined in the
specification as a combination of water, 1% saline and oil. Brief, p. 5. Thus, the
appellants contend that the teachings of Kochan do not anticipate or render obvious the
claimed invention. Id. We find these arguments unpersuasive.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007