Appeal No. 2006-1027
Application No. 09/865,074
water absorption of the starch. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235
(CCPA 1955); In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907, 175 USPQ 93, 95 (CCPA 1972); In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980)(Discovery of the
optimum value of a result effective variable is ordinarily within the skill of the art).
We determine that Willard also teaches and suggests the importance of the
viscosity and the water absorption values of each component, although Willard uses
other methods of measuring these values than recited in claim 21 on appeal. See
Willard, col. 6, ll. 32-35, where it is taught that a higher viscosity of the cereal grains is
directly proportional to greater water holding ability. Willard also teaches that each
component has varying viscosity (and water-absorbing ability) as temperature increases
(col. 6, ll. 53-58). Although Willard uses a “Modified Bostwick Index (M.B.I.)” as a
measurement of water-holding ability of the snack ingredients (col. 8, l. 27-col. 9, l. 10),
Willard teaches that “[o]ther methods of absorption measurement for the cereal flours
can also be adopted by those skilled in the art” (col. 10, ll. 14-16). Furthermore, Willard
discloses the Brabender curves as a measurement of viscosity, determining the
viscosity for each dough component as a function of temperature (col. 6, ll. 37-58).
Willard further teaches the importance of the viscosity of the HIWAC ingredient (the
pregelatinized starch)(col. 7, ll. 1-12). Accordingly, we determine that the discovery of
the optimum water absorption value and optimum viscosity for any component in the
dough composition of Willard would have been well within the skill of this art.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007