Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11,
13-17, 21-24, 30-32 and 34-39 as being anticipated by Devic
We refer to the appellant’s position and the examiner’s
position in connection with this rejection.
With respect to claim 1, beginning on page 8 of the brief,
appellant argues that claim 1 is a method comprising the steps of
treating whole grain kernels. Appellant argues that “[b]y
contrast, the Devic (‘788) reference is concerned with treating
ground material.” Brief, page 8.
In response, beginning on page 4 of the answer, the examiner
disagrees and states that Devic clearly teaches that whole grains
may be used, and refers to column 2, lines 60-68 of Devic. We
agree. In fact, Devic teaches in column 1, beginning at line 18
that “[t]he plant materials which can be bleached according to
the invention include all products of vegetable origin, which are
used for nutrition, either in their entirety or parts thereof”
[emphasis added].
Hence, while we appreciate appellant’s discussion of other
disclosures of Devic, regarding treatment of powdered pulp, etc.,
the reference is not so limited. We note that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have evaluated Devic’s disclosure as a
whole, rather than solely the working examples or preferred
embodiments, because a prior art disclosure is not limited to its
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007