Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 26-29 as being
obvious over Devic in view of Hoseney
With regard to claims 26, 28, and 29, appellant argues that
claim 26 is concerned with tempering the grain after it is
treated. Appellant argues that there is no discussion of any
tempering step in Devic. Appellant argues that “it is seen that
the combination presented by the Examiner appears to set forth
tempering prior to the treatment with the alkaline peroxide
solution in Devic”. This is incorrect. On pages 4-5 of the final
Office action mailed June 4, 2004, it is clear that the
examiner’s position is that Devic is silent about tempering the
grain before processing. However, the examiner relies upon
Hoseney for teaching that tempering is desirable for cereal
grains because tempering makes the product easier to grind and
toughens the bran so that the bran does not fall into small
pieces. This teaching does not mean that the tempering step must
occur before the grain is treated. The combination suggests that
tempering the grain is beneficial because it makes the product
easier to grind and toughens the bran so that the bran does not
fall into small pieces. This teaching can apply at a time after
the grain is bleached, when grinding is desirable, for example.
With regard to claim 27, appellant sets forth arguments on
page 17 of the brief. Appellant simply argues that claim 27 is
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007