Appeal 2007-0726
Application 10/264,561
86, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an
applicant can overcome a rejection by showing insufficient evidence of
prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence
of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” (emphasis omitted)).
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
In considering the issue on appeal, we first review the teachings of the
prior art applied by the Examiner and consider (1) the scope and content of
those references, (2) the differences between what is encompassed by claims
1, 3, 6, and 28 and the prior art, and (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art
of food coating evinced by the prior art.
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (FF) by a
preponderance of the evidence:
1. Appellants’ invention and all of the applied prior art references are
directed to the same field of endeavor, i.e., the field of coating
edible food particles with a flour-based coating. In each process,
the particles or cores (seeds, nuts, dried fruit, etc.) are alternately
coated with a dry mixture and an aqueous solution such as a sugar
solution. In each process, the dry mixture contains flour, starch or
mixtures thereof.
2. Claim 1 requires the dry mixture include a pregelatinized waxy
starch in its unmodified form and a raw potato starch in addition to
the wheat flour component (Claim 1).
3. Lanner generally describes using starchy flour mixtures which
expand upon cooking to form a crisp material. Lanner suggests the
use of a blend of cereal flour and pregelatinized starch. Lanner
discusses a range of useful flours. Pregelatinized modified waxy
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013