Appeal 2007-0212
Application 10/446,483
substrate. However, we fully concur with the Examiner that Lehtonen
provides ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ
Appellants' enzymatic approach to reduce the oxygen level in
Narayanaswamy's package dough.
Lehtonen, like the admitted prior art in Appellants' Specification,
establishes that it was known in the art that the removal of oxygen from
packaged foods has the advantage of reducing spoiling caused by
microorganisms that need oxygen to grow (see Lehtonen at col. 2, ll. 8-13).
Lehtonen specifically states that "[o]xygen removal has been suggested for
the purpose of minimizing detrimental oxidative processes in food" (col. 2,
ll. 14-15). As an improvement over purging the packaging of oxygen with
other gases, such as nitrogen, Lehtonen discloses the use of Appellants'
enzymatic approach, i.e., adding glucose oxidase to the food product to
reduce the oxygen level below 1% (col. 3, ll.8-12). Consequently, although
Lehtonen does not specifically disclose raw dough as the food product, we
are convinced that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in
the art to utilize Lehtonen's enzymatic approach instead of the gaseous
purging method disclosed by Narayanaswamy. We agree with the Examiner
that inhibiting discoloration of the dough product would be an inherent result
that naturally flows from following the teachings of Lehtonen. As explained
by the Examiner, Appellants have advanced no rationale why one of
ordinary skill in the art would not include raw dough within the general class
food products disclosed by Lehtonen. Nor have Appellants established that
the amounts of enzyme fairly taught by Lehtonen would not inhibit
discoloration, particularly with respect to the unspecified degree claimed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007