Appeal No. 2006-0295
Application 10/053,926
products, agricultural products, paints, paper board products, gypsum board products, and textile
wrap sizings.
19. A method for increasing the gel strength of a composition comprising adding sago
starch having a fluidity of from about 40 to about 80 to the composition.
20. The method of claim 19 wherein the composition has at least about the same gel
strength as a composition comprising 30% more of a comparable WF corn starch.
26. The method of claim 19 wherein the composition is selected from the group
consisting of food products, personal care products, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, paper
products, agricultural products, paints, paper board products, gypsum board products, and textile
wrap sizings.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Park 4,784,871 Nov. 15, 1988
Eden et al. (Eden) 4,874,628 Oct. 17, 1989
Yuan 6,017,388 Jan. 25, 2000
Jeffcoat et al. (Jeffcoat) 6,488,980 Dec. 3, 2002
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Eden (Office action
mailed July 20, 2004 (Office action), page 2);
claims 10 through 15 and 20 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eden (Office action, page 2); and
claims 16, 17, 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Eden in view of Jeffcoat, Park or Yuan (Office action, pages 2-3).1
Appellants argue claims in the following groups: claim 9; claim 19; claims 10 through
15; claims 20 through 25; claims 16 and 17; and claims 26 and 27 (brief, pages 2-6). Thus, we
decide this appeal based on appealed claims 9, 10, 16, 19, 20 and 26 as representative of the
grounds of rejection and appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September
2004).
We reverse the ground of rejection of claims 9 and 19 under § 102(b). We affirm the
examiner's decision refusing to allow appealed claims 10 through 17 and 20 through 27 based on
Eden alone and in view of Jeffcoat, Park and Yuan under § 103(a) because we agree with the
examiner's conclusion that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over the
1 The examiner states that the grounds of rejection are “set forth in a prior Office Action, mailed
on July 6, 2004” (answer, page 3). It is apparent from the record that the grounds of rejection are
set forth in the Office action mailed July 20, 2004.
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007