Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763
A. treating whole grain kernels having at least an
exterior bran layer and an inner endosperm with
peroxide to decrease the color of the bran layer, while
minimizing exposure of the endosperm to the peroxide,
to provide a lightened grain kernel
B. treating the whole grain kernels with an alkaline
solution, wherein step B is practiced as a separate
prior step; and
wherein said method additionally comprises a drying
stop intermediate step B and A.
The above method claim suggests a method comprising the
steps of A and B. Hence, we are not convinced by appellant’s
position as set forth on page 19 of the brief regarding the
prosecution history of the parent application. The issue
involves a comparison of the patent claims with the instant
pending claims.
In view of the above, we affirm the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 1-18, 21-39, and 47 as being
obvious over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,497,909.
VI. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11,
15, 17, 21, 30-32, and 34-39 is affirmed.
However, the rejection of claims 13-16 and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. However, these claims are
rejected, anew, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Devic.
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007