Appeal 2007-3418
Application 11/032,390
(5) Villwock teaches that many prior art processes, including Murray,
employ aqueous enrobing slurries to apply starches to the french
fry product (col. 1, ll. 11-29; and col. 2, ll. 9-51); and
(6) Villwock exemplifies high amylose starches, obtained from corn
sources, as part of the starch and dextrin coating applied at pickup
levels of less than 1% for the french fry product (see Table 1 in
cols. 7-8).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
The analysis supporting obviousness should be made explicit, and where the
combination of prior art involves more than a simple substitution of one
known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to
something ready for the improvement, the analysis should “identify a reason
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
elements” in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has properly
established a prima facie case of obviousness, which prima facie case has
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013