Appeal 2007-3418
Application 11/032,390
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we
AFFIRM this rejection essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as
well as those reasons set forth below.2 With regard to the obviousness-type
double patenting rejection, we note that Appellants have not contested this
rejection (Answer 2, ¶ (6); Second Reply Br.). Accordingly, we summarily
AFFIRM this rejection.
OPINION
A. The Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection
As discussed above, Appellants have not contested or disputed this
rejection. Accordingly, we summarily AFFIRM the rejection of claims
24-30 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.
B. The Rejection under § 103(a)
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Murray discloses a method including cutting raw potatoes,
blanching the potatoes, coating the potatoes (french fries) with an
aqueous dispersion of a high amylose starch from corn or rice
sources, conventionally deep frying the potatoes in hot oil, and
then freezing the product, which method produces a french fry
product with a high degree of crispness for prolonged periods, a
superior strength and rigidity, and excellent taste and shelf life
2 We note that claim 30, which is in product-by-process format, has not been2
separately addressed by the Examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013