Appeal 2007-0726
Application 10/264,561
Mochizuki US 4,499,113 Feb. 12, 1985
Lanner US 5,433,961 Jul. 18, 1995
Specifically, the Examiner rejects claims 1-34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lanner in view of Chino and Mochizuki.
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have included an unmodified pregelatinized waxy starch
and raw potato starch in the starchy flour dry coating mixture of Lanner
because the inclusion of these ingredients in flour/starch-type core coatings
was well known in the art as evidenced by Chino and Mochizuki (Answer
6).
II. GROUPING OF CLAIMS
For purposes of review, Appellants group the claims as follows:
Group 1: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-15, 17-22, and 25-27
Group 2: claims 3, 16, 23, and 24; and
Group 3 claims 6, 8, and 28-34 (Br. 6-10).1
We select claim 1 as representative for Group 1 and claim 3 for group
2. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004). For Group 3, due to differences in
the scope of the claims, we will consider both claims 6 and 28.
III. ISSUE
The overarching issue is: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner’s
rejection is flawed or overcome the rejection through a showing of
secondary indicia of nonobviousness? See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-
1 Appellants include claims 6 and 8 with the first group of claims as well as
the third group of claims. Based on the subject matter of the claims and the
arguments of Appellants, we treat claims 6 and 8 as standing or falling with
claims 28-34 of the third group.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013