Appeal No. 2006-3157
Application No. 10/417,608
prevents the interior dough from browning normally during baking if the interior dough
were at an exterior surface of the dough composition.”
In the event of further prosecution, the examiner should reconsider whether
claims 9, 11, 12, 19, and 20 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2. Claim 27
Claim 27 appears to be indefinite for the same reasons that claim 1 is indefinite.
Specifically, claim 27 recites that “the interior dough does not brown normally during
baking if the interior dough is at an exterior surface of the dough composition.” Claim 27
also recites that “a surface of the dough composition browns normally during baking.” If
“a surface of the dough composition” is interpreted as a surface of the interior dough, the
claim appears to be contradictory. In the event of further prosecution, the examiner
should consider whether claim 27 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
3. Claims 23-25
Claims 23-25 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The examiner has indicated that the claims would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims. See final Office action mailed March 21, 2005, p. 5. However, claims 23-25
have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and that rejection has been
affirmed on appeal.
Claim 23 depends from claim 21, and claims 24 and 25 depend from claim 23. If
claim 21 is amended as suggested in the previous section of this decision, the rejection of
claims 21 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, would be overcome.
However, if the appellant does not amend claim 21 as suggested, claims 21 and 23-25
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007