Appeal 2006-0891
Application 10/224,886
chemical leavening agent is delayed until the last 105 seconds of a second
stage mix cycle. Claim 1 is broader in scope. First, claim 1 is not limited to
delaying the addition of the encapsulated agent until the last 105 seconds of
a second stage mixing process. Second, claim 1 encompasses times up to
160 seconds of high speed mixing. Example 1 is not shown to be
commensurate-in-scope with the protection sought by the claims.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 1 and claims 2, 3,
and 9-13 standing or falling therewith. Appellant has not sufficiently
rebutted the prima facie case.
Claims 4-6
Turning to claims 4-6, we select claim 4 as representative of the issues
on appeal for these claims. Claim 4 requires that the dough composition
exhibit reduced carbon dioxide evolution compared to the carbon dioxide
evolution of similarly processed dough exposed to 210 seconds or more of
high speed mixing.
Appellant argues that Kuechle does not teach, motivate, or suggest
how to prepare a chemically leavened dough with the reduced carbon
dioxide evolution claimed. This argument is not persuasive because
Kuechle teaches performing the process at speeds and times within the
claimed range and performing the process as so suggested by Kuechle would
result in the reduced carbon dioxide evolution that is claimed.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 4-6 that has not
been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007