Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
the claimed subject matter of claim 13. Therefore we reverse the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection but reject, anew, claim 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claim 14, appellant sets forth arguments on
pages 13 and 14 of the brief.
Claim 14 recites a method comprising applying an amount of
peroxide solution which is an aqueous solution of about 1 to 5
parts H2O2 per 100 parts of grain.
We observe that the examiner’s position (as set forth in
the final Office action of June 4, 2004), with regard to the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 14, does not point to any
disclosure found in Devic that anticipates this aspect of the
claimed invention. Nor does the examiner respond to appellant’s
position with regard to the rejection of claim 14 in the answer
on pages 4-7. At best, the examiner indicates at the bottom of
page 2 and at the top of page 3, of the final Office action
mailed June 4, 2004, that the Devic teaches that the amount of
hydrogen peroxide used can vary from 1% to 20%. Claim 14 recites
the amount of peroxide that can be used in parts per 100 parts of
grain. We must therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection, but we reject claim 14, anew, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 16 and 17, appellant sets forth
arguments on page 15 of the brief. Claim 16 provides that the
alkaline solution is supplied for about 1% to saturation in
amounts of about 10 parts to 15 parts (dry weight) of alkaline
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007