Appeal No. 2006-3157
Application No. 10/417,608
2. Claim 14
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 1 and recites that the dough composition is
“packaged in low pressure packaging.”
The appellant argues that Banks does not teach a dough composition packaged in
low pressure packaging as claimed. Furthermore, the appellant argues that Banks does
not even mention packaging a dough composition. Brief, p. 22.
The admitted prior art recognizes that premature contact of basic chemical
leavening agent and acidic chemical leavening agent causes premature gas release and
premature expansion of the dough composition. When the dough is packaged in low
pressure packaging, the admitted prior art further recognizes that premature evolution of
leavening gas causes expansion of the package. However, it was known to encapsulate a
chemical leavening agent with a barrier material to prevent premature contact between
leavening agents, thereby preventing premature release of leavening gas and expansion of
the dough. Specification, p. 1, line 27-p. 2, line 9.
As discussed above, the dough composition disclosed in Banks includes
encapsulated sodium bicarbonate. Banks at col. 4, lines 10-13. Based on the admitted
prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that a dough composition,
such as in Banks, which contains an encapsulated basic agent and a non-encapsulated
acidic agent would not prematurely expand due to premature contact between the two
agents and could be packaged in a low pressure package. We find that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have known that low pressure packaging is cheaper than pressurized
packaging or packaging that includes a pressure relief valve. Therefore, economic
reasons would have motivated the proposed modification. See In re Thompson, 545 F.2d
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007