Appeal No. 2006-0825
Application No. 10/253,333
appellants who must shoulder the burden of establishing results
that would be considered truly unexpected by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231
USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077,
1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972).
Also, we agree with the examiner that Reddy, although
directed to cheese products, provides further evidence that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that
flour having a particle size within the claimed range would have
superior anti-sticking properties relative to flour having a
greater particle size. As explained above, the interrupting
nature of the flour particles would have been reasonably expected
to function similarly on dough and cheese surfaces.
Appellants emphasize an aspect of the Matz invention that is
not directed to the use of anti-sticking powder, i.e., adding
potassium polymetaphosphate to the dough, and insinuate that
dusting with rice flour is only taught by Matz as a prior art
technique (see page 4 of reply brief, first paragraph). However,
as emphasized by the examiner, Matz exemplifies the use of anti-
sticking powder for the disclosed invention (see Examples 1 and
2).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007