Appeal No. 1006-1198
Application No. 10/639,936
c) depositing a first portion of the uncooked batter onto a bottom plate of a waffle iron
having a temperature of from 120 to 250 degrees Celsius;
d) allowing the first portion of the uncooked batter to partially cook and then depositing
the fill material onto the partially cooked first portion of the batter;
e) depositing a second portion of the uncooked batter material over the fill material and
closing the waffle iron; and
f) allowing the first and second batter portions to cook through thereby forming the
baked freezer stable filled waffle.
60. The method as recited in claim 54 wherein step a) comprises providing a batter
having: from 40 to 50% by weight water, from 35 to 40% by weight hard wheat flour, from 6 to
15% by weight shortening, from 3 to 7% by weight liquid whole egg, from 0.5 to 3% by weight
whey, from 1 to 5% by weight granulated sugar, from 0.5 to 1% by weight baking soda, from 0.4
to 0.7% by weight sodium aluminum phosphate, from 0.25 to 1% by weight salt, and from 0.05
to 0.5% by weight monocalcium phosphate.
64. The method as recited in claim 54 wherein step b) comprises providing a fill material
having from 35 to 80% by weight sweeteners and from 0.5 to 50% by weight of a fruit source.
66. The method as recited in claim 54 wherein step b) comprises providing a fill material
comprising 35 to 80% by weight sweetener and at least one of water, a fruit source, a starch, a
fat, a natural flavor, an artificial flavor, an emulsifier, an acidulant, a hydrocolloid gum, a salt, a
coloring agent, an antimycotic preservative, a humectant, a fortificant, a protein, or mixtures
thereof.
Claims 53 through 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Haynes
Jacobson.
The examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of unpatentability:
Haynes-Jacobson US 2002/0068115 June 6, 2002
Based upon the specific arguments regarding patentability of a particular claim provided
by appellants on pages 15 through 18 of the brief, we consider claim 53 in this appeal.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence of record, the examiner’s answer, and
appellants brief. This review has led us to the following determinations.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007