Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
22-24. However, we reject, anew, claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
With regard to the product by process claims 30-39,
appellants set forth arguments on page 17 of the brief.
Appellant argues that in accordance with method claim 1, the
resulting product, as covered by claim 20, is a lightened grain
kernel. Appellant argues that Devic does not disclose such an
end product. We are not convinced by this argument. As
discussed, supra, with regard to method claim 1, we find that
Devic does disclose bleaching a plant material that includes “all
products of vegetable origin, which are used for nutrition,
either in their entirety or parts thereof” [emphasis added]. See
column 1, lines 19-21 of Devic. The plant materials can include
whole grains of cereals. See column 2, lines 62-64 of Devic.
Hence, we agree with the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claims 30-32 and 34-39.1
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21, 30-32, and 34-39.
However, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 13-16 and 22-24. We reject these claims, anew, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Devic.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7-9, 12, 18, 25, 33
1 We note that the examiner rejected claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
because claim 33 depends upon claim 7, which is also rejected under 35
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007