Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
grains.
The examiner states on page 4 of the final Office action
mailed June 4, 2004, that it would have been obvious “to optimize
the time and temperature of the process as the time and
temperature affect the whiteness and stability of the product”.
In the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of this final Office
action, 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. Appellant
has not shown criticality in connection with the concentration of
the hydroxide, the temperature range, the weight ratio of
alkaline solution to grain, the soaking time, the concentration
of the peroxide, and the soaking time of the peroxide solution.
Absence such evidence, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 47.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 7-9, 12, 18, 33 and 47 as obvious over Devic.
However, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim
25 as being obvious over Devic.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2 as being obvious
over Devic in view of Gould
On page 6 of the brief appellant concedes to the obviousness
of claim 2.
Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007