Appeal No. 2006-3110 Page 2
Application No. 10/185,846
food products and the ability to more closely control the separate steps involved in the
preparation of the food products.” Id., page 1, lines 20-26.
Discussion
Claims
Claims 1-20 are appealed. The claims stand or fall together since Appellants
have not separately argued their patentability. We select claim 1 as representative:
1. A dough comprising:
(a) from about 0.1% to about 4% added potato fiber;
(b) from about 35% to about 85% starch-based material; and
(c) from about 10% to about 50% added water.
Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1-20 stand rejected as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Feeney1 in
view of Roney2.
The Examiner rejected the claims as being obvious over the combination of
Feeney and Roney. Feeney teaches a potato-based dough that is improved by the
addition of a “water absorbent fibrous cellulosic material.” Feeney, column 2,
lines 35-40. Preferred cellulosic materials are high in pectin, especially materials
derived from citrus peel and sugar beet pulp. Id., column 2, lines 40-44. Other fibrous
cellulosic materials can be utilized in the dough that contain a water-soluble and water-
insoluble fiber component. Id., column 2, lines 53-57; column 10, lines 8-17. According
1 Feeney et al. (Feeney), U.S. Pat. 4,876,102, issued Oct. 24, 1989
2 Roney et al., (Roney), U.S. Pat. No. 6,645,546, issued Nov. 11, 2003
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007