Appeal 2007-3418
Application 11/032,390
Claims 24-30 stand rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-23 of co-pending S.N.
10/926,876 in view of Murray (id.).1
Appellants contend that the issue is whether the art teaches the
application of selected high amylose starches in an aqueous batter at the
solids pickup levels recited in the claims (Br. 5).
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not identified any reason
why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the disparate
disclosures of Murray (high amylose starch in aqueous suspension at 0.002
to 0.02% pickup levels) with Villwock (dextrins applied as a dry coating at
higher pickup levels) (Br. 5-6; Second Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner contends that the references may be combined since
starch solids pickup by the potato strips will result whether a dry coating or
an aqueous suspension is used (Answer 4).
The Examiner contends that it was well known to coat blanched
potato strips, prior to frying, with a starch coating so as to achieve a solids
pickup of less than 2%, as taught by Villwock (Answer 3).
Accordingly, the issue as presented from the record of this appeal is as
follows: (1) Has the Examiner identified a proper reason for the combination
of Murray and Villwock to show every limitation of the claims?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
1 We note that this application on appeal is a continuation-in-part of S.N.
10/926,876, which is also on appeal. We further note that the serial number
of this parent application is apparently incorrect as stated in the Specification
(Specification 1:3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013