Appeal 2007-0212
Application 10/446,483
Appealed claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Narayanaswamy in view of Vaisanen and
Lehtonen.1
Appellants have provided separate arguments only for claims 2, 15
and 16. Accordingly, claims 3-14 and 17-26 stand or fall together with
claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the
Examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior art, as well as his
cogent and thorough disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants.
Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner's reasoning as our own in sustaining
the rejection of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
There is apparently no dispute that Narayanaswamy discloses a
packaged dough product comprising raw dough and a substrate, glucose, that
reacts with oxygen in the presence of a suitable enzyme. Narayanaswamy
inhibits the deleterious effects of oxygen on the dough by reducing the
residual oxygen content to less than 4% and, for best results, less than 2%
(col. 7, ll.7-9). As appreciated by the Examiner, Narayanaswamy does not
teach the claimed method of incorporating an oxidoreductase enzyme into
the dough for removing the oxygen via chemical reaction with the glucose
1 The statement of the rejection at page 3 of the Examiner's Answer refers to
claims 1-25 rather than appealed claims 1-26. However, since the Examiner
finally rejected claims 1-26 and has not explicitly withdrawn the rejection of
claim 26, we consider the Examiner's omission of claim 26 in the statement
of the rejection to be harmless error. Also, we note that Appellants have not
separately argued claim 26.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007