Appeal No. 2006-2809 Page 9
Application No. 10/867,713
from “a light, fluffy and stable foam.” Page 4, lines 37-40. Bisperink does not identify
the resulting foam as a mousse. However, Bisperink’s foam appears to be a mousse as
the term is used in the specification (pages 3-4). Thus, Bisperink reasonably appears to
anticipate claim 24.
In responding to the pending rejections, Appellants argue that “Bisperink is
directed to a composition that produces a quality of foam that is ‘light and fluffy’ on the
surface of a beverage. . . . [O]ne skilled in the art would understand the lighter and
fluffier foam on a beverage is distinguishable from a stable, solid mousse made by the
present claims.” Appeal Brief, page 12. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Appellants have not provided any evidence that the term “mousse” does not
encompass the type of foam generated by Bisperink. The specification states that “the
viscosity of the obtained mousse . . . may range from a firm mousse to a foamy slurry.”
Pages 3-4. This broad description of the mousse appears to encompass the foam
described in Bisperink. Thus, we conclude that Bisperink describes a mousse, as the
term is used in Appellants’ specification.
In addition, Appellants’ argument does not appear to address claim 1, which is
directed to a “powdered mousse mix,” not to a mousse. Even if the technique described
in Bisperink did not form a mousse, the powder described in Bisperink would still appear
to be capable of forming a mousse by being contacted with a liquid and gently stirred,
and therefore qualify as a “powdered mousse mix.” Specification, page 3.
Other Issues
We have only applied the new ground of rejection to independent claims 1 and
24. The examiner is more familiar with this art, and should consider whether any of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007