Appeal No. 2006-3157
Application No. 10/417,608
1290, 1294, 192 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1976) (economic factors alone would have
motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed invention).
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
3. Claim 15
Claim 15 reads as follows:
The composition of claim 14 wherein the chemical leavening agents do
not react sufficiently during 8 weeks of storage at 45 degrees Fahrenheit to
substantially expand the packaging.
The appellant argues that Banks does not teach, motivate, or suggest such a packaged
dough composition. Brief, p. 23.
It was known to make chemical leavening systems as stable as possible by using a
basic chemical leavening agent having a high degree of encapsulation. Specification, p.
2, lines 26-30. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that storage
time is a result effective variable. In other words, based on the admitted state of the art,
one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the more encapsulated the basic
agent is, the more stable the chemical leavening system will be and the longer the
package can be stored before leavening gas is created and the dough and packaging
expand. For this reason, we find that the storage conditions recited in claim 15 would
have been within the ordinary skill in the art. Cf. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205
USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980) (the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective
variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art).
The rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007