Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
answer, the examiner states that this aspect of the claimed
invention “is a conventional type of heating, is a viable
alternative to the heating used in Devic and is not critical to
appellant’s process”. We observe that Devic does not indicate
how the heating is conducted. The examiner does not support how
microwave heating is a viable alternative, especially since the
type of heating in Devic is not disclosed. We therefore reverse
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 25.
With regard to claim 33, appellant argues this claim on page
17 of the brief. Appellant states that because Devic is silent
with regard to treating a grain kernel, claim 33 is patentable.
However, as discussed, supra, we find that Devic teaches
bleaching whole grains. Therefore, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 33.
With regard to claim 47, appellant argues the subject matter
of this claim on pages 17-19 of the brief. Claim 47 recites a
method of bleaching cereal grains, comprising the steps of:
applying whole cereal grains w1th an alkaline solution of sodium
bicarbonate or sodium hydroxide at a concentration of about 1% to
10% and a temperature of about 50o to 165oF in a weight ratio of
alkaline solution to grain ranging from about 10:100 to about
15:100 for about 30 seconds to three minutes, and then applying a
peroxide solution at a concentration of about 5% to 40% peroxide
to the cereal grains for about 30 seconds to three minutes at a
temperature of about 50o to 165oF to provide bleached cereal
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007