Appeal 2007-1213
Application 10/137,306
Appellant’s present invention directed to a foodstuff comprising a
substantially undenatured canola protein isolate. Representative claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. In a food composition comprising a foodstuff and at least one
component providing functionality to said food composition, said
functionality being selected from the group consisting of
solubility, viscosity, water binding, gelation, cohesion/adhesion,
elasticity, emulsification, foaming, fat binding, film forming and
fibre forming, the improvement which comprises at least partially
replacing said at least one component for its specific functionality
in a specific food composition by a substantially undenatured
canola protein isolate having a protein content of at least about
100 wt %, as determined by Kjeldahl nitrogen N x 6.25, said
canola protein isolate being capable of providing all such
functionalities in food compositions.
The prior art set forth below is relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence in rejecting the appealed claims:
Cameron US 4,418,013 Nov. 29, 1983
Charles Morris, New Technology Isolates Canola Protein, Food
Engineering, 73-74 (2001).
Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated
by Morris; and claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Cameron.
“To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must disclose every
limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently.” In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013