Thelma Oviasu

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 8, 2019

14460792 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/460,792 08/15/2014 Thelma Oviasu 4557-4 1009
82659 7590 08/08/2019
Valauskas Corder LLC
150 South Wacker Drive
Suite 1650
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
TRAN, LIEN THUY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
alex@vciplaw.com
corder@vciplaw.com
lcipra@vciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE
THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte THELMA OVIASU1
________________

Appeal 2018-007796
Application 14/460,792
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MARK NAGUMO, and
JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Thelma Oviasu (“Oviasu”) timely appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Final Rejection2 of all pending claims 1 and 22–26. We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6. We affirm.

1 The real party in interest is identified as the inventor, Thelma Oviasu.
(Appeal Brief, filed 26 February 2018 (“Br.”), 3.)
2 Office Action mailed 26 September 2017 (“Final Rejection”; cited as
“FR”).
Appeal 2018-007796
Application 14/460,792

2
OPINION
A. Introduction3
According to the ′792 Specification, “[p]lantain fruit serves as the
tenth most important staple food in the world.” (Id. at 2, ll. 4–5.) The
Specification indicates further that it is known that plantains are rich in
starch, dietary fiber, and a number of minerals and vitamins (id. at ll. 6–9).
The subject matter on appeal relates to processes of removing starch from
plantains in order “to produce a consumable food product that is lower in
starch and therefore lower in carbohydrates and calories relative to food
products made by conventional processes.” (Spec. 1, ll. 20–22.) The
process, according to the Specification, may be applied to “such other
starchy fruit and vegetable includ[ing] . . . bananas, corn, yam, African
sweet potatoes, rice, cow peas, black eye peas, red beans, chick peas,
potatoes, cassava, and cocoa yams.” (Id. at 5, ll. 15–17.)
Claim 1 is representative and reads:
A method of producing a high nutritional value cookable
plantain food product consisting of the steps of:
mixing an initial liquid with a plantain,
mashing the plantain in order to produce a plantain mash,
the plantain mash comprising
a pulp and
a pulp liquid that includes the initial liquid,
wherein the pulp liquid contains a starch portion;

3 Application 14/460,792, Plantain food product and processes for
producing plantain food product, filed 15 August 2014, claiming the benefit
of six preliminary applications filed between 15 August 2013,
and 15 November 2013. We refer to the “′792 Specification,” which we cite
as “Spec.”
Appeal 2018-007796
Application 14/460,792

3
removing the pulp liquid from the plantain mash to produce
a drier plantain mash and
a removed liquid;
separating the starch portion from the removed liquid
to produce a high nutritional value plantain liquid
supernatant; and
returning the high nutritional value plantain liquid
supernatant to the drier plantain mash
to prepare an enhanced value plantain mash having a
higher nutrition level compared to the drier mash and a
lower level of starch compared to the plantain mash,
and is usable to produce the high nutritional value
cookable plantain food product.
(Claims App., Br. 18; some formatting, and emphasis added.)
Remaining independent claims 24 and 26 are similar. Claim 24 adds
the limitation that the starch aggregate be discarded. (Id. at 18–19.)
Claim 26 adds the limitations that at least a second extraction of the drier
plantain mash be made, and that the combined liquid supernatants be added
to the [resulting] drier plantain mash. (Id. at 19–20.)
Appeal 2018-007796
Application 14/460,792

4
The Examiner maintains the following ground of rejection4, 5:
Claims 1 and 22–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view
of the combined teachings of admitted prior art6, Elvis7, Madden8,
and Annie.9
B. Discussion
The Board’s findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by
a preponderance of the evidence of record.
The Examiner finds that it was known from the admitted prior art to
add water to plantains, mash them, and cook the mash. (FR 2, last para.)
The Examiner finds further that it was known that plantains are rich in
starch, dietary fiber, and a number of minerals and certain vitamins. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that the admitted prior art does not disclose the steps of

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed 18 May 2018 (“Ans.”).
5 Because this application claims the benefit of provisional applications
filed only after 16 March 2013, the effective date of the America Invents
Act, we refer to the AIA version of the statute.
6 Spec. 2, first and last paras.
7 Oviri M. Elvis, Properties of starch extracted from three different
plantains (Musa paradisiaca) cultivars in Nigeria, Adv. Food Sci. and
Technol., 276–280 (November 2014) (only pp. 276–277 are of record).
(The Examiner and Oviasu refer to this article as “Article 1.”)
8 Michelle Madden, Are your vegetables nutritionally impotent?
(http://www.thesweetbeet.com/vegetables-nutrients/) (posted 2 October
2010) (last visited 20 September 2017). (The Examiner and Oviasu refer to
this article as “Article 2.”)
9 Annie, 5 Ways to reuse veggie steaming/blanching water
(http://montanasolarcreations.com/2012/08/5-ways-to-reuse-veggie-
steaminblanching-water) (posted 27 August 2012) (last visited 20 September
2017). (The Examiner and Oviasu refer to this article as “Article 3.”)
Appeal 2018-007796
Application 14/460,792

5
removing the liquid from the mash, leaving a drier plantain mash, separating
the starch portion from the liquid, and returning the liquid, which is rich in
nutrients, to the drier plantain mash. (FR 3, 1st para.)
The Examiner finds that Elvis10 teaches how to remove starch from
the liquid removed from the mash (id. at 2d para.); that Madden teaches that
nutrients are lost when vegetables are cut, cooked, frozen, juiced, and stored
(id. at 3d para.); that Annie teaches that nutrients are lost and leach into
water when vegetables are processed—and that Annie teaches that the
process water can be used, inter alia, as an additive in cooking
(id. at 4th para.). The Examiner also finds that “[m]aking low starch product
is not an unknown concept in food production.” (Id., sentence bridging 3–
4.)
The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to prepare a
lower-starch content food from plantains, which were known to have a high-
starch content, by following the standard mashing preparation, removing
starch from the liquid as taught by Elvis, and using the liquid (known to be
nutrient rich, as taught by Madden and Annie) as an additive to the drier
plantain mash, as suggested generally by Annie. (FR, para. bridging 3–4;
Ans., para. bridging 7–8.) The Examiner considers that the further limitation
recited in claim 24 of discarding the separated starch is suggested by the
generally known objective of making a lower starch food product. (Ans. 9,
1st para.) The Examiner explains further that the step of repetitively

10 The Examiner explains that Elvis is relied on for evidence of the starch
extraction process, which due to Kim et al. (1995) (Elvis 276, col. 1,
penultimate para.), so Elvis is, for this purpose, prior art. (FR 2, ll. 12–14.)
Oviasu does not object.
Appeal 2018-007796
Application 14/460,792

6
extracting the mash with water, separating the starch from the nutrient-rich
water, and returning the combined nutrient rich water portions would have
been obvious because “repeating a step to obtain a specific end property is
within the skill of one in the art.” (Id., 2d para.)
Oviasu urges the Examiner erred reversibly because Elvis, by teaching
that the supernatant is discarded as having no useful purpose, teaches away
from returning the supernatant to the drier plantain mash. (Br. 11–12.)
This argument is not persuasive because, as the Examiner points out
(Ans. 6), Elvis is concerned with isolating and using the starch; but the
admitted prior art is concerned with preparing food from plantains, and
Madden and Annie show that persons skilled in the art would have
appreciated that the starch-depleted liquid portion would contain valuable
nutrients, while Annie teaches that such nutrient-rich liquid may be used to
enhance the nutritional value of foods that need additional liquid for
processing, such as blending. This rationale also rebuts effectively Oviasu’s
arguments that the references teach away from one another, and that there is
no clear teaching that directs the reintroduction of the nutrient-laden water to
the drier plantain mash. (Br., para. bridging 13–14.) The level of skill of the
ordinary food preparer is not so low that explicit instructions are required to
suggest applying general principles of cooking—especially when enunciated
by the art of record—such as re-using nutrient-rich water obtained from one
step of food preparation, when additional liquid water is needed or desirable
for another step of food preparation.
Similarly, Oviasu urges that discarding the starch aggregate, as
required by claim 24, and performing plural serial extractions of the plantain
Appeal 2018-007796
Application 14/460,792

7
mash, separating the starch from the extracted liquid, and returning the
nutrient-rich extracted water to the drier plantain mash, are not taught by or
suggested by the prior art. (Br. 15–17.)
For essentially the same reasons, we do not find these arguments
persuasive of harmful error. As the Examiner points out (Ans. 9), starch (or
other by-products), if not needed for a particular food, may be set aside or
discarded. Similarly, plural extractions and use of the extracted material are
commonplace in the kitchen.
In conclusion, Oviasu’s arguments do not persuade us of harmful
error in the appealed rejections. We therefore affirm.
C. Order
It is ORDERED that the rejection of claims 1 and 22–26 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED