Appeal 2006-0891
Application 10/224,886
Claims 7 and 8
Turning to claim 7, the claim we select as representative of the issues
presented by grouped together claims 7 and 8, we note that this claim
requires that the percentage of damaged encapsulated chemical leavening
agent particles be below 15 percent.3
Appellant argues that Kuechle does not teach, motivate, or suggest
how to prepare a chemically leavened dough composition by exposing the
encapsulated agent to no more than 160 seconds of high speed mixing to
limit the damage to the low amounts of claim 7. However, Kuechle does
suggest performing the process so that the encapsulated agent is exposed to
no more than 160 seconds of high speed mixing. When one of ordinary skill
in the art so performed the process, the damage would be less than 15
percent as claimed. This is because the amount of damage, as suggested by
Appellant, is dependent on the length of time the encapsulated leavening
agent is subjected to high speed mixing.
Claim 14
Turning to claim 14, we note that this claim requires two mixing
stages, each of which comprises a low speed mixing step and a high speed
mixing step. Claim 14, therefore, requires two high speed mixing steps.
Kuechle teaches only one high speed mixing step. The Examiner provides
3 Appellant’s Claims Appendix appended to the Brief recites “10 percent.”
The Examiner states that the claim should read “15 percent” because claim 7
was an original claim that had not been amended. We note that claim 7 was
listed as an original claim in the Amendment filed on December 20, 2004,
but that the claim 7 reproduced therein recited “10 percent.” (Amendment
filed December 20, 2004). Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s
correction of the claims, and, therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s correction.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007