Appeal No. 2005-0191
Application No. 09/971,239
First, we point out that with respect to the step of “determining an estimated fluid
absorption optimum hydrolysis level” we have addressed this argument, above in
footnote 1. That is, because the starch product recited in the claims is in a product-by-
process format, and the specification states the fluid absorption optimum hydrolysis
level may range from about 30% to about 50%, there is no difference between the
claimed granular starch product and the granular starch product taught by Kochan.
Second, with respect to the meaning of the term “fluid,” we point out that the
specification states that the optimum fluid absorption level may be defined as the
maximum oil absorption which “may be taken as the minimum hydrolysis level at which
oil absorption is maximized (reaches an apparent plateau)” [emphasis added].
Specification, p. 10. Thus, the specification includes oil as an example of a fluid. To
that end, it appears that there is more of an overlap between the method described in
representative claim 27 and method taught by Kochan than that which was discussed
above. That is, since the specification states that oil absorption plateaus at a level of
hydrolysis in the range from about 30% to about 60%, our reasoning with respect to
representative claim 15 is also applicable to claim 27.
In addition, we do not find that the specification limits the definition of “fluids” to a
mixture of water, 1% saline and oil. The specification states that said mixture is an
example of a fluid which may be present on the skin. See, specification, p. 5, lines 17-
23. That is, the specification discloses that various fluids can be absorbed by the
granular starch, “such as fluids that approximate the fluids found on the skin. One such
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007