Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
contact with the plant material”. Brief, page 12. Appellant
argues that this arrangement is quite different from claim 11
wherein only sufficient amounts of peroxide solution to wet the
surface of the grain kernels are employed. Appellant argues that
Devic teaches away from the claimed invention in this regard.
Upon our review of claim 11, claim 11 provides no limit as
to the amount of peroxide solution that is applied to the surface
of the grain kernels. As pointed out by the examiner in the
paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of the answer, claim 11 is not
limited to wetting only the kernel surface without any
penetration into the kernel core. Hence, we are not convinced by
appellant’s arguments in this regard.
With regard to claim 13, appellant states on page 13 of the
brief, that claim 13 further limits the subject matter of claim
11 by specifying that the peroxide is applied at a specific
concentration, temperature, and time.
Devic discloses that the soaking time ranges from a “few
minutes to a few hours”. Column 4, lines 65-67. The hydrogen
peroxide is typically used in the form of an aqueous solution of
30% to 70% strength. See column 3, lines 64-65. The temperature
during the soaking phase ranges from 20o to 100oC. See column 4,
lines 57-58. Hence, Devic discloses three different parameters,
having three respective ranges. Although Devic discloses
overlapping ranges among the three parameters, a certain amount
of picking and choosing would be necessary in order to anticipate
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007