Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
with peroxide step A comprises spraying the peroxide solution
onto the grain kernels. Appellant argues that the soaking
disclosed in Devic is seen to be “quite distinct from spraying a
peroxide solution”. However, we find that Devic suggest that the
alkaline peroxide solution can be continuously sprayed. See
column 4, lines 51-55. Although Devic refers to the alkaline
peroxide solution (the mixture), rather than separately spraying
the peroxide, such is likewise deemed obvious.
With regard to claim 18, claim 18 recites that step B is
practiced as a separate prior step. Claim 18 depends upon claim
15. Claim 15 recites that claim 1 additionally comprises step B,
treating the whole grain kernels with an alkaline solution. On
pages 3-4 of the final Office action mailed June 4, 2004, the
examiner states that it would have been obvious to complete the
peroxide step and the basic step within one-step or break the
process down into multiple steps. We agree. Compare In re
Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 976, 5 USPQ 230, 231-232 (CCPA 1930) (the
selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie
obvious).
With regard to claim 25, appellant sets forth arguments on
page 16 of the brief. Claim 25 recites that a portion of the
supplemental heating is supplied by microwave heating. The
examiner’s position as set forth on page 3-4 of the prior Office
action mailed June 4, 2004 does not discuss this aspect of the
claimed invention as set forth in claim 25. On page 6 of the
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007