Appeal No. 2006-3110 Page 6
Application No. 10/185,846
motivation for the person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected potato fiber for
Feeney’s potato-based dough.
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that the choice of a potato fiber for
Feeney’s potato dough would have been reasonably suggested to the skilled worker
when Feeney’s purpose is to make such products as potato chips and french fried
potatoes (Feeney, column 14, lines 59-61). Its addition to the dough would not
reasonably be expected to “negatively influence” the taste of the finished fried food
product, as warned against in Feeney, since it is from the same original source, i.e.,
potato. Id., column 11, lines 42-45. Thus, we conclude that the Examiner has provided
sufficient evidence to establish a case of prima facie obviousness.
Appellants argued that the references do not teach or suggest that potato fiber is
cellulosic. Brief, page 4. According to Feeney, a “cellulosic fiber” is “a dietary fiber
comprised of at least about 20% cellulose or modified cellulosic material.” Feeney,
column 3, lines 50-53. The Examiner provided evidence in the Answer that vegetable
fibers contain 50-80% cellulose, meeting Fenney’s definition of a cellulosic fiber.
Although Appellants had the opportunity to rebut this, they did not further address this
issue. Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has provided sufficient evidence that
potato fiber is cellulosic.
It was maintained by Appellants that Roney teaches away from the use of potato
fiber since it would not be “tasteless and sugar-free” as required by Roney. Brief,
page 4. We do not find this argument persuasive. First, Appellants stated it was well-
known in the art that potato fiber contains “glucose” which is “distinct, noticeable and
therefore not tasteless,” but provided no supporting evidence to substantiate this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007