Ex Parte Metzger

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2005

10315763 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2005)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte LLOYD E. METZGER
______________

Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application 10/315,763
______________

ON BRIEF
_______________

Before OWENS, DELMENDO, and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.

PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-18, 21-39, and 47. A copy
of each of these claims is set forth in the attached appendix.
The examiner relies on the following references as evidence
of unpatentability:
Gould 4,806,475 Feb. 21, 1989
Devic 5,480,788 Jan. 02, 1996
Metzger 6,497,909 Dec. 24, 2002
Hoseney, “Cereal”, Principles of Science and
Technology, 2nd Edition, published by the American
Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc. 1986, 1984.

Claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, 13-17, 21-24, 30-32 and 34-39 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Devic.
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-2-
We note the examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 33 in
this rejection.
Claims 7-9, 12, 18, 25, 33 and 47 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Devic.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Devic in view of Gould.
Claims 26-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Devic in view of Hoseney.
Claims 1-18, 21-39 and 47 stand rejected under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No.
6,497,909.
With regard to the claims under consideration in this
appeal, to the extent that any one claim is specifically and
separately argued regarding patentability, we will consider such
claim. Our consideration of any one particular claim is
discussed under each heading below, corresponding to a respective
rejection. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September 2004);
formerly 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier,
21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
We have carefully reviewed appellant’s brief, and reply
brief, the examiner’s answer and the evidence of record. This
review has led us to the following determinations.

Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-3-
OPINION

I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11,
13-17, 21-24, 30-32 and 34-39 as being anticipated by Devic

We refer to the appellant’s position and the examiner’s
position in connection with this rejection.
With respect to claim 1, beginning on page 8 of the brief,
appellant argues that claim 1 is a method comprising the steps of
treating whole grain kernels. Appellant argues that “[b]y
contrast, the Devic (‘788) reference is concerned with treating
ground material.” Brief, page 8.
In response, beginning on page 4 of the answer, the examiner
disagrees and states that Devic clearly teaches that whole grains
may be used, and refers to column 2, lines 60-68 of Devic. We
agree. In fact, Devic teaches in column 1, beginning at line 18
that “[t]he plant materials which can be bleached according to
the invention include all products of vegetable origin, which are
used for nutrition, either in their entirety or parts thereof”
[emphasis added].
Hence, while we appreciate appellant’s discussion of other
disclosures of Devic, regarding treatment of powdered pulp, etc.,
the reference is not so limited. We note that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have evaluated Devic’s disclosure as a
whole, rather than solely the working examples or preferred
embodiments, because a prior art disclosure is not limited to its
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-4-
working examples or to its preferred embodiments. Merck & Co.
Inc. v. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843,
1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1,
215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747,
750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965,
148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). We therefore are unconvinced by
appellants’ arguments in this regard.
Appellant also argues that the claimed method provides
“minimizing exposure of the endosperm to the peroxide to provide
a lightened grain kernel.” Brief, pages 9-10. In response, on
page 4 of the answer, the examiner notes that Devic teaches a
soak time that is similar to the soak time of appellant’s claimed
invention. We agree. As such, minimum exposure of the endosperm
of the kernel to the peroxide would likewise result in Devic.
Appellant also argues claim 11 in this rejection. See pages
11-12 of the brief. Claim 11 requires that sufficient amounts of
the peroxide solution is applied to wet substantially the entire
surfaces of the grain kernels. Appellant argues, on the other
hand, Devic specifically teaches that “amounts and concentration
of the reactants of the alkaline aqueous hydrogen peroxide
solution must be selected such that all of the solution is
absorbed by the plant material over the course of the soaking”.
Appellant further states that Devic teaches that “this soaking
must be complete, namely, all the alkaline solution must be
absorbed by the material, and no aqueous phase must remain in
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-5-
contact with the plant material”. Brief, page 12. Appellant
argues that this arrangement is quite different from claim 11
wherein only sufficient amounts of peroxide solution to wet the
surface of the grain kernels are employed. Appellant argues that
Devic teaches away from the claimed invention in this regard.
Upon our review of claim 11, claim 11 provides no limit as
to the amount of peroxide solution that is applied to the surface
of the grain kernels. As pointed out by the examiner in the
paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of the answer, claim 11 is not
limited to wetting only the kernel surface without any
penetration into the kernel core. Hence, we are not convinced by
appellant’s arguments in this regard.
With regard to claim 13, appellant states on page 13 of the
brief, that claim 13 further limits the subject matter of claim
11 by specifying that the peroxide is applied at a specific
concentration, temperature, and time.
Devic discloses that the soaking time ranges from a “few
minutes to a few hours”. Column 4, lines 65-67. The hydrogen
peroxide is typically used in the form of an aqueous solution of
30% to 70% strength. See column 3, lines 64-65. The temperature
during the soaking phase ranges from 20o to 100oC. See column 4,
lines 57-58. Hence, Devic discloses three different parameters,
having three respective ranges. Although Devic discloses
overlapping ranges among the three parameters, a certain amount
of picking and choosing would be necessary in order to anticipate
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-6-
the claimed subject matter of claim 13. Therefore we reverse the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection but reject, anew, claim 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claim 14, appellant sets forth arguments on
pages 13 and 14 of the brief.
Claim 14 recites a method comprising applying an amount of
peroxide solution which is an aqueous solution of about 1 to 5
parts H2O2 per 100 parts of grain.
We observe that the examiner’s position (as set forth in
the final Office action of June 4, 2004), with regard to the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 14, does not point to any
disclosure found in Devic that anticipates this aspect of the
claimed invention. Nor does the examiner respond to appellant’s
position with regard to the rejection of claim 14 in the answer
on pages 4-7. At best, the examiner indicates at the bottom of
page 2 and at the top of page 3, of the final Office action
mailed June 4, 2004, that the Devic teaches that the amount of
hydrogen peroxide used can vary from 1% to 20%. Claim 14 recites
the amount of peroxide that can be used in parts per 100 parts of
grain. We must therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection, but we reject claim 14, anew, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claims 16 and 17, appellant sets forth
arguments on page 15 of the brief. Claim 16 provides that the
alkaline solution is supplied for about 1% to saturation in
amounts of about 10 parts to 15 parts (dry weight) of alkaline
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-7-
material per 100 parts grain. Again, the examiner does not
specifically point to any disclosure of Devic that discloses the
subject matter of claim 16. At best, at the top of page 3 of the
final Office action mailed June 4, 2004, the examiner points out
that Devic teaches that the amount of alkaline agent may vary in
a range from 0.55 to 10.0% and refers to column 2, lines 20-25 of
Devic. Hence, we must reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 16, but we reject claim 16 anew, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With respect to claim 17, we note that appellant does not
specifically argue the subject matter of this claim. Brief, page
15. We note that claim 17 depends upon 15 and claim 15 depends
upon claim 1. Appellant does not separately argue claim 15
either. Therefore, for the same reasons that we affirmed the 35
U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, we also affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claims 15 and 17.
On pages 15-16 of the brief, appellant argues claim 22.
Claim 22 recites that the alkaline solution and peroxide solution
are combined immediately prior to application onto the grain.
Appellant argues that Devic does not specify whether the alkaline
solution is prepared just prior to the application of the grain,
or days or weeks before application to the grain. Brief, page
15. We find that the examiner does not point to any disclosure
of Devic that indicates what time the aqueous alkaline hydrogen
peroxide solution is prepared prior to application of the grain.
Therefore, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-8-
22-24. However, we reject, anew, claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
With regard to the product by process claims 30-39,
appellants set forth arguments on page 17 of the brief.
Appellant argues that in accordance with method claim 1, the
resulting product, as covered by claim 20, is a lightened grain
kernel. Appellant argues that Devic does not disclose such an
end product. We are not convinced by this argument. As
discussed, supra, with regard to method claim 1, we find that
Devic does disclose bleaching a plant material that includes “all
products of vegetable origin, which are used for nutrition,
either in their entirety or parts thereof” [emphasis added]. See
column 1, lines 19-21 of Devic. The plant materials can include
whole grains of cereals. See column 2, lines 62-64 of Devic.
Hence, we agree with the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claims 30-32 and 34-39.1
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11, 15, 17, 21, 30-32, and 34-39.
However, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
claims 13-16 and 22-24. We reject these claims, anew, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Devic.

II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7-9, 12, 18, 25, 33

1 We note that the examiner rejected claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
because claim 33 depends upon claim 7, which is also rejected under 35
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-9-
and 47

With regard to claim 7, appellant sets forth his position on
pages 10-11 of the brief. Claim 7 recites that the cereal grain
is a red wheat. Appellant argues that red wheat can be treated
to have the visual appearance of white wheat, while still
retaining the genetic profile of the color producing gene alleles
of red wheat. Appellant argues that red wheat in accordance with
the present invention can be utilized with food products only
previously employed in connection with white wheat.
Beginning at page 5 of the answer, the examiner states that
the use of red wheat is not considered patentably distinct from
the wheat used in Devic. The examiner states it would have been
obvious to select any type of wheat. We agree. As stated supra,
Devic teaches the plant materials that can be bleached include
all products of vegetable origins which are used for nutrition,
either in their entirety or parts thereof. Exemplary of such
products are cereal grains (wheat, maize, oats, barley, rice,
etc.), peels, skins, pips of fruits, bran from oil plants, such
as sunflowers, bran from cereals”. See column 1, lines 18-24 of
Devic. In view of this disclosure, we determine that it would
have been obvious to select the type of wheat recited in claim 7.
With regard to claim 12, appellant sets forth arguments on
pages 12-13 of the brief. Claim 12 recites that the treatment

U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-10-
with peroxide step A comprises spraying the peroxide solution
onto the grain kernels. Appellant argues that the soaking
disclosed in Devic is seen to be “quite distinct from spraying a
peroxide solution”. However, we find that Devic suggest that the
alkaline peroxide solution can be continuously sprayed. See
column 4, lines 51-55. Although Devic refers to the alkaline
peroxide solution (the mixture), rather than separately spraying
the peroxide, such is likewise deemed obvious.
With regard to claim 18, claim 18 recites that step B is
practiced as a separate prior step. Claim 18 depends upon claim
15. Claim 15 recites that claim 1 additionally comprises step B,
treating the whole grain kernels with an alkaline solution. On
pages 3-4 of the final Office action mailed June 4, 2004, the
examiner states that it would have been obvious to complete the
peroxide step and the basic step within one-step or break the
process down into multiple steps. We agree. Compare In re
Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 976, 5 USPQ 230, 231-232 (CCPA 1930) (the
selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie
obvious).
With regard to claim 25, appellant sets forth arguments on
page 16 of the brief. Claim 25 recites that a portion of the
supplemental heating is supplied by microwave heating. The
examiner’s position as set forth on page 3-4 of the prior Office
action mailed June 4, 2004 does not discuss this aspect of the
claimed invention as set forth in claim 25. On page 6 of the
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-11-
answer, the examiner states that this aspect of the claimed
invention “is a conventional type of heating, is a viable
alternative to the heating used in Devic and is not critical to
appellant’s process”. We observe that Devic does not indicate
how the heating is conducted. The examiner does not support how
microwave heating is a viable alternative, especially since the
type of heating in Devic is not disclosed. We therefore reverse
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 25.
With regard to claim 33, appellant argues this claim on page
17 of the brief. Appellant states that because Devic is silent
with regard to treating a grain kernel, claim 33 is patentable.
However, as discussed, supra, we find that Devic teaches
bleaching whole grains. Therefore, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 33.
With regard to claim 47, appellant argues the subject matter
of this claim on pages 17-19 of the brief. Claim 47 recites a
method of bleaching cereal grains, comprising the steps of:
applying whole cereal grains w1th an alkaline solution of sodium
bicarbonate or sodium hydroxide at a concentration of about 1% to
10% and a temperature of about 50o to 165oF in a weight ratio of
alkaline solution to grain ranging from about 10:100 to about
15:100 for about 30 seconds to three minutes, and then applying a
peroxide solution at a concentration of about 5% to 40% peroxide
to the cereal grains for about 30 seconds to three minutes at a
temperature of about 50o to 165oF to provide bleached cereal
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-12-
grains.
The examiner states on page 4 of the final Office action
mailed June 4, 2004, that it would have been obvious “to optimize
the time and temperature of the process as the time and
temperature affect the whiteness and stability of the product”.
In the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of this final Office
action, the examiner states that it would have been obvious to
complete the peroxide step and the basic step within one-step or
break the process down into multiple steps. We agree. Appellant
has not shown criticality in connection with the concentration of
the hydroxide, the temperature range, the weight ratio of
alkaline solution to grain, the soaking time, the concentration
of the peroxide, and the soaking time of the peroxide solution.
Absence such evidence, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 47.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 7-9, 12, 18, 33 and 47 as obvious over Devic.
However, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim
25 as being obvious over Devic.

III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2 as being obvious
over Devic in view of Gould

On page 6 of the brief appellant concedes to the obviousness
of claim 2.
Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-13-

IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 26-29 as being
obvious over Devic in view of Hoseney

With regard to claims 26, 28, and 29, appellant argues that
claim 26 is concerned with tempering the grain after it is
treated. Appellant argues that there is no discussion of any
tempering step in Devic. Appellant argues that “it is seen that
the combination presented by the Examiner appears to set forth
tempering prior to the treatment with the alkaline peroxide
solution in Devic”. This is incorrect. On pages 4-5 of the final
Office action mailed June 4, 2004, it is clear that the
examiner’s position is that Devic is silent about tempering the
grain before processing. However, the examiner relies upon
Hoseney for teaching that tempering is desirable for cereal
grains because tempering makes the product easier to grind and

toughens the bran so that the bran does not fall into small
pieces. This teaching does not mean that the tempering step must
occur before the grain is treated. The combination suggests that
tempering the grain is beneficial because it makes the product
easier to grind and toughens the bran so that the bran does not
fall into small pieces. This teaching can apply at a time after
the grain is bleached, when grinding is desirable, for example.
With regard to claim 27, appellant sets forth arguments on
page 17 of the brief. Appellant simply argues that claim 27 is
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-14-
patentable for the same reasons provided for claim 26. Appellant
also argues that because claim 27 depends upon claim 15, the
combination of claims 1, 15, and 27 are seen to be separately
patentable. For the reasons we affirmed the rejection of claims
1, 15 and 26, we likewise affirm the rejection of claim 27.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 26-29 as being obvious over Devic in view of
Hoseney.

V. The rejection of claims 1-18, 21-39 and 47 under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
as being obvious over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,497,9092

Appellant argues this rejection on page 19 of the brief.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on page 6
of the final Office action mailed June 4, 2004. The examiner
states that “although the conflicting claims are not identical,
they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would
have been obvious to treat the kernels with the peroxide and
alkali in any particular order as well as in a single step”. We
agree. We additionally note that claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
6,497,909 is directed to:
A method of bleaching cereal grain, comprising the steps of:

2 On page 3 of the reply brief, appellant indicates the submittal of a
terminal disclaimer. Upon return of this application to the
jurisdiction of the examiner, we instruct proper handling of this
paper.
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-15-
A. treating whole grain kernels having at least an
exterior bran layer and an inner endosperm with
peroxide to decrease the color of the bran layer, while
minimizing exposure of the endosperm to the peroxide,
to provide a lightened grain kernel

B. treating the whole grain kernels with an alkaline
solution, wherein step B is practiced as a separate
prior step; and

wherein said method additionally comprises a drying
stop intermediate step B and A.

The above method claim suggests a method comprising the
steps of A and B. Hence, we are not convinced by appellant’s
position as set forth on page 19 of the brief regarding the
prosecution history of the parent application. The issue
involves a comparison of the patent claims with the instant
pending claims.
In view of the above, we affirm the obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 1-18, 21-39, and 47 as being
obvious over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,497,909.

VI. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 10, 11,
15, 17, 21, 30-32, and 34-39 is affirmed.
However, the rejection of claims 13-16 and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed. However, these claims are
rejected, anew, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Devic.
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-16-
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7-9, 12, 18, 25, 33
and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Devic is
affirmed. However, the rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 2 as being obvious
over Devic in view of Gould is affirmed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 26-29 as being
obvious over Devic in view of Hoseney is affirmed.
The judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting rejection of claims 1-18, 21-39 and 47 as being obvious
over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 6,497,909 is affirmed.
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejections of one or
more claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004, 69
Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21
(September 7, 2004)). 37 CFR § 41.50(b) provides "[a] new ground
of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered
final for judicial review."
37 CFR § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of
rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected
claims:
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-17-
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence
relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have
the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event
the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . .

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the
proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon
the same record. . . .

Should the appellant elect to prosecute further before the
examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b)(1), in order to preserve
the right to seek review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141 or 145 with
respect to the affirmed rejection, the effective date of the
affirmance is deferred until conclusion of the prosecution before
the examiner unless, as a mere incident to the limited
prosecution, the affirmed rejection is overcome.
If the appellant elects prosecution before the examiner and
this does not result in allowance of the application, abandonment
or a second appeal, this case should be returned to the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences for final action on the affirmed
rejection, including any timely request for rehearing thereof.

AFFIRMED &
37 CFR § 41.50(b)

Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-18-

TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ROMULO H. DELMENDO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
BEVERLY A. PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )

BAP/vsh
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-19-
APPENDIX
Claims Appealed

1. A method of bleaching cereal grains, comprising
the steps of:

A. treating whole grain kernels having at least an
exterior bran layer and an inner endosperm with
peroxide to decrease the color of the bran layer,
while minimizing exposure of the endosperm to the
peroxide to provide a lightened grain kernel.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein the cereal grain is
cleaned to provide milling quality grain prior to
treatment w1th peroxide.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein the cereal grain is
selected from the group consisting of wheat, rice,
barley, corn (maize), oats, triticale, amaranth, and
soybeans.

4. The method of claim 3 wherein the cereal grain is
selected form the group consisting of wheat rice,
barley and soybeans.

5. The method of claim 4 wherein the cereal rain is
selected from the group consisting of wheat and rice.

6. The method of claim 1 wherein the cereal grain is
wheat.

7. The method of claim 6 wherein the cereal grain is
a red wheat.

8. The method of claim 6 wherein the cereal grain is
a white wheat.

9. The method of claim 8 wherein the white wheat is a
hard wheat.

Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-20-
10. The method of claim 1 wherein the treatment with
peroxide step A comprises applying a peroxide solution
to the cereal grain.

11. The method of claim 10 comprising applying
sufficient amounts of the peroxide solution to wet
substantially the entire surfaces of the grain kernels.

12. The method of claim 11 wherein the treatment with
peroxide step A comprises spraying the peroxide
solution on to the grain kernels.

13. The method of claim 11 wherein step A includes
applying an aqueous solution of about 6% to 40% H202 at
a temperature of about 50o to 165oF for about 30
seconds to three minutes.

14. The method of claim 13 further comprising applying
about 1 to 5 parts H202 per 100 parts of grain.

15. The method of claim 1 additionally comprising the
step of:

B. treating the whole grain kernels with an
alkaline solution.

16. The method of claim 15 wherein the alkaline
solution is supplied from about 1% to saturation in
amounts of about 10 parts to 15 parts (dry weight) of
alkaline material per 100 parts grain.

17. The method of claim 16 wherein step B is practiced
at a temperature of about 130o to 165oF.

18. The method of claim 15 wherein step B is practiced
as a separate prior step.

21. The method of claim 15 wherein step B is practiced
simultaneous with step A.

22. The method of claim 21 wherein the alkaline
solution and peroxide solution are combined immediately
prior to application onto the grain.

Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-21-
23. The method of claim 22 wherein the treatment is
practiced at temperature of 100o to 165oF.

24. The method of claim 23 wherein the treatment step
is practiced with supplemental heating during the step.

25. The method of claim 24 wherein at least a portion
of the supplemental heating is supplied by microwave
heating.

26. The method of claim 1 additionally comprising the
step of tempering the treated grain to provide a
tempered grain.

27. The method of claim 15 additionally comprising the
step of tempering the treated grain to provide a
tempered grain.

28. The method of claim 26 additionally comprising the
step of mining the tempered grain to provide a whole
grain flour.

29. The method of claim 28 wherein the milling step is
practiced to provide a whole grain flour without a germ
fraction.

30. The product prepared by the method of claim 1.

31. The product prepared by the method of claim 3.

32. The product prepared by the method of claim 5.

33. The product prepared by the method of claim 7.

34. The product prepared by the method of claim 10.

35. The product prepared by the method of claim 15.

36. The product prepared by the method of claim 16.

37. The product prepared by the method of claim 18.

Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-22-
38. The product prepared by the method of claim 22.

39. The product prepared by the method of claim 29.

47. A method of bleaching wheat grains, comprising
the steps of:
applying whole cereal grains with an alkaline
solution of sodium bicarbonate or sodium hydroxide at a
concentration of about 1% to 1O% and a temperature of
about 50o to 165oF in a weight ratio of alkaline
solution to grain ranging from about 10:100 to about
15:100 for about 30 seconds to three minutes, and then
applying a peroxide solution at a concentration of
about 5% to 40% H202 to the cereal grains for about 30
seconds to the three minutes at a temperature of about
50o to 165oF to provide bleached cereal grains.
Appeal No. 2005-1454
Application No. 10/315,763

-23-
GENERAL MILLS, INC.
NUMBER ONE GENERAL MILLS BLVD.
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55426