Appeal 2006-0891
Application 10/224,886
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004), we note that the Specification uses the
terminology “uniformly distribute” to indicate the thoroughness of the
mixing (see, e.g., Specification 27:28-31; 28:19-24; 28:27-30). On the other
hand, when discussing the timing of the addition, the Specification refers to
exposing the encapsulated particles to less than all of the high speed mixing
(Specification 28:27-30) by adding the encapsulated particles during a later
portion of the high speed mixing (Specification 29:1-3 and 30:8-10). This
timing language is not present in claim 26. Claim 26 encompasses uniform
distribution of encapsulated chemical leavening agent already present in the
mixture including uniform distribution of encapsulated chemical leavening
agent added to the dough ingredients during dry ingredient mixing as
suggested by Kuechle.
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1 which
has not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellant.
Claims 16, 17, 23, and 24
Turning to the next argued group of claims, i.e., claims 16, 17, 23, and
24, we select claim 16 to represent the issues on appeal for this group.
Focusing on claim 16, we note that this claim incorporates limitations
similar to those of claim 26 and claim 7. Unlike claim 1, claim 16 is not
limited to exposing the encapsulated chemical leavening agent to no more
than 160 seconds of high speed mixing. For the reasons provided above in
the discussion of claims 1, 7, and 26, we conclude that the Examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness that has not been sufficiently
rebutted by Appellant.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007