Appeal No. 2006-0825
Application No. 10/253,333
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of
preventing the surfaces of frozen dough which contact each other
from sticking together. The method entails providing an edible
powder, such as a flour or starch, as an anti-stick material on
the contacting surfaces of the frozen dough. The anti-stick
powder has an average particle diameter in the range of from
5 microns to 160 microns.
Appealed claims 1-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Matz in view of Reddy.
Appellants have not set forth an argument that is reasonably
specific to any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together. In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
Section 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we
will sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the answer.
The disclosures of Matz and Reddy establish that it was well
known in the art to utilize edible powders of flour, starch,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007