Appeal 2007-2060
Application 09/945,318
flowing breakfast cereal and Thompson et al. teach free-flowing
breakfast cereals can be made from a variety of flours, which
would vary in flavors and nutrients. It would have been further
obvious to treat oat flour to prevent rancidity since Hellweg
teaches inactivating enzymes in oat flour to prevent rancidity
when oat flour is used for puffed cereal based products….
[I]t would have been obvious to further modify Beer and treat
oat flour to prevent rancidity, as recited in claim 78, since
Beer's bag will prevent the cereal based material's exposure to
oxygen and light during the shelf life, but it does not take into
account eliminating the effects of oxygen and light prior to
packaging (e.g. during conventional cereal processing steps,
such as puffing), and Hellweg teaches inactivating enzymes in
oat flour to prevent rancidity when oat flour is used for puffed
cereal based products. To obtain nearly double the shelf life
would have been obvious, depending on the basis of
comparison, since the combination of (1) an oxygen free/light
free package and (2) pre-treatment of the flour prior to the
puffed cereal production process would increase the shelf life of
the puffed cereal most significantly when compared to non-
treated flour cereal that is not packed, but less a non-treated
flour based cereal stored in a transparent gas flushed bag held in
a carton. (Compare Answer 14-16 and 20-21, with Br. 20-21
and 23).
Rather, the Appellants rely on the same arguments raised in the
REJECTION (1) above. Therefore, based on the factual findings set forth
in the Answer and above, we determine that the preponderance of evidence
weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness of the subject matter claimed
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REJECTION (10): Claims 62-64.
The Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s determination that:
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013