Appeal No. 2006-2809 Page 4
Application No. 10/867,713
2. Pending Rejections
The examiner has rejected claims 1-11, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over Cameron2 in view of Bisperink.3 The examiner states that
“Cameron discloses a powdered mix for producing an aerated confection comprising a
source of carbohydrate, a source of protein, and a source of fat (column 1, lines 20-39)
but does not disclose a gas-generating ingredient.” Examiner’s Answer, page 3.
In addition, the examiner states that “Bisperink discloses a gas-generating
ingredient that generates a volume of gas of 5 to 30 mL/g of gas-generating ingredient
when contacted with a liquid (paragraph 11), comprising a carbohydrate and protein
matrix . . . (abstract). Bisperink discloses the use of the gas-generating ingredient in
powdered mixes such as creamers (paragraph 24), milkshake powders, soup powders,
sauce powders, etc. (paragraph 28).” Id., pages 3-4. In addition, the examiner argues
that “Bisperink discloses the inclusion of a gas-generating ingredient in powdered mixes
to create aeration.” Id., page 8.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to “include the gas-
generating ingredient of Bisperink in the powdered mix of Cameron in order to create an
aerated confection that is light, fluffy, and stable.” Id., page 4. In particular, the
examiner argues that “it would be obvious to include such an ingredient in any
powdered mix, including a powdered mousse mix, when aeration is desired in the final
product.” Id., page 8.
2 Cameron et al., U.S. Patent No. 2,913,342, issued November 17, 1959.
3 Bisperink et al., European Patent Application No. 1 074 181 A1, published February 7, 2001.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007