Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
working examples or to its preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.
Inc. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843,
1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1,
215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,
750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965,
148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). We therefore are unconvinced by
appellants’ arguments in this regard.
Appellant also argues that the claimed method provides
“minimizing exposure of the endosperm to the peroxide to provide
a lightened grain kernel.” Brief, pages 9-10. In response, on
page 4 of the answer, the examiner notes that Devic teaches a
soak time that is similar to the soak time of appellant’s claimed
invention. We agree. As such, minimum exposure of the endosperm
of the kernel to the peroxide would likewise result in Devic.
Appellant also argues claim 11 in this rejection. See pages
11-12 of the brief. Claim 11 requires that sufficient amounts of
the peroxide solution is applied to wet substantially the entire
surfaces of the grain kernels. Appellant argues, on the other
hand, Devic specifically teaches that “amounts and concentration
of the reactants of the alkaline aqueous hydrogen peroxide
solution must be selected such that all of the solution is
absorbed by the plant material over the course of the soaking”.
Appellant further states that Devic teaches that “this soaking
must be complete, namely, all the alkaline solution must be
absorbed by the material, and no aqueous phase must remain in
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007