Here is part of what the BOPAI ruled in Ex parte PEEYUSH MAHESHWARI, et al
Appellants do not take issue with the Examiner’s legal conclusion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, based on Bongiovanni, to add cornmeal to the dough of Hayes-Jacobson. Also, Appellants make no argument that it would have been nonobvious, based on the disclosures of Lee and Pesheck and the state of the prior art, to add bread crumbs to the product of Hayes-Jacobson. Rather, the sole argument advanced by Appellants is that none of the references provides “any insight or instruction to one of skill in the art that the inclusion of bread crumbs inside a pre-cooked dough will help to reduce boil-out of an internal filling during microwave heating of a microwavable dough product”
More of what the Board held:
[I]n the present case, the fact that Appellants may have discovered a new advantage for adding bread crumbs to the filling of a dough product does not result in the metamorphosis of an obvious food composition comprising bread crumbs into a different, nonobvious composition. Significantly, Appellants have not proffered any objective evidence which establishes unexpected results attributed to the addition of bread crumbs into the filling of the dough product of Hayes-Jacobson, let alone evidence of sufficient probative value to outweigh the obviousness of doing so. See In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1092, 197 USPQ 601, 609 (CCPA 1978); In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977).