Appeal 2006-0891
Application 10/224,886
no supporting evidence or convincing reasons supporting a conclusion that
one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate another mixing stage
including both a low speed mixing step and a high speed mixing step into
the process of Kuechle.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 14.
Claim 15
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 14 and, for the reasons presented
above, we conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 15.
Claim 26
Turning to claim 26, the next claim argued by Appellant, this claim is
dependent on claim 1 and requires uniform distribution of the encapsulated
chemical leavening agent particles after the step of combining the dough
ingredients into a mixture.
Appellant’s emphasis on the word “after” as used in the claim and the
tenor of their arguments implies that they interpret the claim as requiring an
addition of encapsulated leavening agent after the combining step. The
claim is not so narrow. This is because the words “uniformly distributed”
require just that, uniform distribution. These words say nothing about the
timing of the addition of the encapsulated chemical leavening agent.
Looking to the Specification, as we must to determine the broadest
reasonable interpretation one of ordinary skill in the art would give the
terms, see In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830, 367
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007