Appeal 2007-3418
Application 11/032,390
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments.3 As shown by
factual finding (1) listed above, we determine that Murray discloses every
limitation of claim 24 on appeal with the exception of the solids pickup level
recited (0.3 to 3%). As shown by factual finding (2) listed above, we
determine that Murray desires the lowest possible amount of coating that
will give the beneficial properties, and teaches that the final deep fried
product should have a solids coating level of 0.002 to 0.02%. This contrasts
with the claimed pickup level on the potato before it is fried and frozen (see
claim 24 on appeal). Thus, the claimed solids pickup levels cannot be
directly compared to the levels taught by Murray. However, as shown by
factual findings (3) through (6) listed above, we determine that Villwock
discloses a very similar process to that of Murray, while teaching use of low
levels of solids pickup for a high amylose starch-containing aqueous
enrobing slurry. Accordingly, we determine that it would have been well
within the ordinary skill in this art to employ low levels of solids pickup,
such as less than 4% as taught by Villwock, for the potato slices of Murray.
Furthermore, as taught by Murray, if the aqueous enrobing slurry deposits
any excess starch during the coating operation, the excess starch can be
blown or washed off to achieve the desired final solids pickup level (see
factual finding (2) listed above).
Contrary to Appellants’ principal argument concerning the “disparate”
disclosures of Murray and Villwock (Second Reply Br. 5), we determine that
Villwock teaches the alternative use of aqueous enrobing slurries to apply a
3 Appellants do not argue any claim with specificity and thus we limit our
consideration in this appeal to independent claim 24 (see the Brief and
Second Reply Brief in their entirety).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013