US 7820217

Summary of US Patent 7,820,217

Caution on scope of my search: I searched for the specific number 7820217 (not similar numbers). I found the patent's own documents (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Patents-Review) and the published application. I did not find any CAFC 2026 docket entry, District Court litigation, or PTAB proceeding naming US 7,820,217. The one CAFC 2026 result my search surfaced (a September 2026 IPWatchdog article on The Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC) concerns U.S. Patent Nos. 7,747,676, 7,882,175, and 8,082,298 — different patents, so it is not relevant to 7,820,217. I cannot independently confirm from the search whether any 2026 CAFC activity exists for this patent; treat "no litigation found" as absence of evidence, not proof.

Also note: the full patent text supplied to me is the authoritative source here, and it controls over any conflicting summary.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (as recorded)

"The present invention relates to a quality improver for a deep-fried food, characterized in that the quality improver comprises a polysaccharide powder having an average particle size of 20 μm or less; a frying powder and a frying food comprising the quality improver; and a deep-fried food prepared by cooking using the quality improver or the frying powder."

Technical gist

The invention is a powdered polysaccharide of very fine, controlled particle size (≤20 μm, preferably 1–20 μm, more preferably 1–15 μm, most preferably 1–10 μm) used as an oil-absorption control ("quality improver") in fried foods. The specification argues that conventional polysaccharides used for this purpose were coarse (≈50–100 μm) and prone to aggregation, giving poor dispersibility in batter/dough and poor results. Preferred production routes are jet pulverization and freeze pulverization (liquid nitrogen, ideally −100 to −50 °C), which are said to give low aggregability and avoid thermal denaturation/oxidation. Preferred polysaccharides are alginic acid and/or pectin, with alginic acid most preferred. Working examples report reduced oil content in batter/dough/noodles and improved panel mouthfeel/taste scores versus comparative coarse-powder and no-additive controls, across tempura, doughnuts, instant fried noodles, and croquettes (bread crumb route).

Plain-language overview of the independent claims (14 claims total)

Four claims are independent in the granted set (3, 4, and 5 depend textually on claim 1 but define separate product categories); claim 14 is a further independent claim in "consisting essentially of" form.

1. Claim 1 — the core composition. A composition for a deep-fried food comprising a polysaccharide powder with an average particle size of ≤20 μm, where the polysaccharide must be one of guar gum, pectin, xanthane gum, alginic acid, or carboxymethyl cellulose, and the powder must have been made by jet pulverization or freeze pulverization. The claim closes with a functional/result-based limitation: the composition imparts reduced oil absorption, increased mouthfeel, and increased taste relative to a powder that is >20 μm and not jet/freeze pulverized. Plainly: "fine-milled (jet- or freeze-ground) guar/pectin/xanthan/alginate/CMC of ≤20 μm that measurably lowers oil uptake and improves eating quality versus the coarse, ordinary version."

2. Claim 3 — frying powder. A frying powder (batter/coating mix) that includes the claim 1 composition.

3. Claim 4 — deep-fried food. A deep-fried food prepared by cooking using the claim 1 composition or the claim 3 frying powder. (A product-by-cooking-usage claim.)

4. Claim 5 — frying food. A frying food (the pre-frying item — e.g., a battered/uncooked or frozen intermediate) comprising the claim 1 composition. This corresponds to the specification's "frying food" definition = food intended for fry cooking but not yet fried.

5. Claim 14 — "consisting essentially of" composition. The same ≤20 μm, jet-/freeze-pulverized polysaccharide from the same five-member group, together with at least one additional named component selected from: egg white, egg white hydrolysates, egg yolk, egg yolk hydrolysates, chicken egg (whole egg), chicken egg hydrolysates, whey protein, wheat protein, gliadin, fatty acid esters of glycerol, enzymatically decomposed lecithin, a powdered animal fat or oil, and a powdered vegetable fat or oil; and again carrying the reduced-oil-absorption / increased-mouthfeel / increased-taste functional limitation.

Dependent claims (briefly): claim 2 narrows the polysaccharide to alginic acid, pectin, or both. Claims 6–9 recite progressively narrower average particle sizes (≤15 μm; ≤10 μm; 1–15 μm; 1–10 μm). Claims 10 and 11 narrow the polysaccharide group (guar/pectin/xanthan/CMC; then guar/pectin/alginic acid). Claims 12 and 13 recite quantitative oil-absorption reductions of "at least approximately 14.8%" and "approximately 14.8–36.6%," respectively, versus the >20 μm, non-jet/freeze-pulverized comparator.

Notes / uncertainties

• Claim scope changed during prosecution. The published application framed the invention generically (any polysaccharide ≤20 μm; see application paragraphs [1]–[3]), and the specification's broadest class is any thickening-stabilizer/starch polysaccharide. The granted claim 1 is much narrower, limited to a five-member Markush group plus a required jet- or freeze-pulverization step plus functional result language. My reading of the granted-claim narrowing is based on the claim text provided; I do not have the prosecution history file wrapper, so I cannot state with certainty which prior art drove the amendment (the listed citations include JP H05-328914, JP 2000-236821, JP H08-154610, JP 2002-017284, JP 2002-315527, JP 2002-291433, JP 2003-023987, and EP 1 010 370).
• Result-based claim language. Claims 1, 12, 13, and 14 include comparative/performance limitations. The examples provide support data (e.g., 33.7% → ~20–23% oil in batter; 42.3% → ~31–35% in croquette batter), but I have not assessed written-description/enablement or the validity of these functional limitations.
• Assignee history: assignment to Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd. recorded 2006‑01‑23; no later reassignment appears in the record I retrieved.
• No CAFC/USPTO litigation or PTAB record found for this specific number as of the search date; please verify directly in PACER/CAFC docket and PatentCenter if litigation status matters, since I could not confirm this independently.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7820217.

Let me try additional search approaches.

Let me try more targeted litigation-database searches.

Litigation Search: U.S. Patent No. 7,820,217

Result: No known litigation identified involving U.S. Patent No. 7,820,217.

I was unable to identify any district court action, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit appeal, ITC Section 337 investigation, or PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR) asserting or challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,820,217 ("Conditioning agent for fry food," Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd.).

Search performed

• Queries for the patent number in plain, comma-separated, and B2 form (7820217, 7,820,217, US7820217B2) combined with "litigation," "lawsuit," and "patent infringement case."
• Assignee-based queries (Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd. as plaintiff/patent owner).
• Attempts to reach litigation aggregators (Unified Patents litigation caselist, CourtListener/RECAP, PACER references, CAFC opinions).

These searches returned no case records for this patent. The Google Patents page for US7820217B2 itself lists only prosecution/assignment/fee events — an assignment to Taiyo Kagaku (2006), a 4th-year maintenance fee payment (2014), and lapse for nonpayment of maintenance fees (effective 2018-10-26). Google Patents' "Cited By" and "Families Citing" tables show only later patent publications citing it as prior art; they contain no litigation entries. Absence of entries in these tables is not itself proof of no litigation, but combined with the failed searches it supports the "no known litigation" conclusion.

Important disclaimer — do not conflate similarly numbered patents

Several search hits referenced a different "’217 patent." None of these concern U.S. 7,820,217 and must not be attributed to it:

• U.S. Patent No. 6,976,217 — "Method and apparatus for integrating phone and PDA user interface in a single processor," asserted by SmartPhone Technologies LLC against ASUSTeK in the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler Division). Different number, different field.
• The Align Technology v. ClearCorrect ’217 patent (orthodontic technology) referenced in the ClearCorrect answer document.
• A D. Idaho case citing 706 P.2d 21 / 100 Idaho 590 (food-processing tort matter) — unrelated.

Confidence and limitations

• I have no affirmative evidence of any litigation, and I found none.
• I could not directly query PACER, the Unified Patents caselist, or Docket Navigator in this session; my searches relied on general web retrieval, which may not surface all filings (especially older, settled, or sealed matters).
• This should be treated as "no litigation found in accessible sources," not a certified negative.

If a definitive negative is required, I recommend a direct Docket Navigator or Lex Machina query limited to Patent No. 7,820,217 (excluding 6,976,217 and other ’217 patents), plus a manual PACER party search for "Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd." as plaintiff. Given the patent lapsed in 2018 for nonpayment of maintenance fees, and its owner is a Japanese food-ingredient company rather than an NPE, extensive assertion activity would be unexpected.

I'll start by verifying the structured ODP data against live sources, since the block says no AIA trials are on file but web search may surface anything the ODP hasn't indexed.

Initial searches returned no PTAB hits. Let me try the PTAB-specific dockets and other angles.

Let me run a few more targeted checks on litigation and PTAB dockets before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 7,820,217: 0 (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials). The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my live searches surfaced no PTAB proceeding, no PTAB E2E docket, and no Federal Circuit appeal touching patent 7,820,217. The defensive posture for a defendant is therefore not "hardened by IPR survival" and not "claims canceled" — it is that the patent was apparently never tested at the PTAB at all, and independently lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees years ago (see below), which is the far more consequential fact.

⚠️ No proceeding sections follow, because there are no proceedings to report. Per the operating rules, I will not invent proceeding numbers, panels, or decisions. Everything that follows is grounded in the structured data block and the fetched patent text.

Why "zero IPRs" is the correct — and correctable — answer

I verified this three ways, and I want to be explicit about the confidence and its limits:

1. Structured ODP data (canonical): the "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings as of the most recent ingest. That is the authoritative list for this task.
2. Targeted web searches: queries for the patent number plus "PTAB," "IPR," "AIA trial," "inter partes review," and "Taiyo Kagaku" returned no PTAB docket, institution decision, FWD, or CAFC opinion. (Note: one search surfaced a different patent — U.S. 9,727,217, a haptics patent — whose number is unrelated apart from a shared "217" string. Do not conflate the two.)
3. Consistency check: the "Cited By," "Families Citing," and "Citations" tables in the Google Patents record list only patents and published applications — no "PTAB Proceedings" or "Litigation" section is present, which is what you would expect for a patent with no post-grant activity.

Do not over-read the absence. Zero IPRs can mean (a) no one ever asserted the patent, (b) it was asserted only in a forum/manner that never prompted a petition, or (c) any challenges never ripened into a filed petition. I cannot distinguish among those from the available record. What I can say with high confidence: a defendant facing a demand today has no ready-made PTAB record to lean on, because none exists.

The controlling fact for a defendant: the patent is dead

Before any invalidity strategy, note the prosecution-status history in the structured data:

• 2018-06-11 — maintenance fee reminder mailed.
• 2018-12-03 — LAPS: "PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES … ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY."
• 2018-12-25 — FP: "Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee," effective date 2018-10-26.
• Current status: Expired - Fee Related.

So the patent lapsed in October 2018 for failure to pay maintenance fees, and per the record it was never revived. That means:

• There is no enforceable patent to infringe for conduct after 2018-10-26. Any demand letter asserting U.S. 7,820,217 against current or recent product activity is asserting a lapsed patent.
• AIA trials are unavailable anyway. An IPR/PGR can only be filed against a patent that is in force; you cannot invalidate an expired patent via the PTAB. So the "no PTAB activity" fact is partly structural — the patent lapsed before the recent surge in food-tech IPR activity, removing it from the PTAB's practical reach.
• The Google Patents line "Adjusted expiration 2025-05-19" reflects a nominal adjusted term (accounting for prosecution delays), not a live patent. Do not rely on that date as an expiration — the fee lapse on 2018-10-26 controls. Worth flagging if an adversary cites the 2025 date.

Bottom line: the correct defensive response is not "run an IPR." It is (1) demand proof of maintenance-fee payment and current enforceability, (2) note the 2018-10-26 lapse moots prospective infringement for post-lapse conduct, and (3) preserve intervening-rights/"public use during lapse" arguments if any claim is made for pre-2018 activity.

Strategic summary

Claim status. The patent issued with 14 claims. Claim 1 is a composition claim: a polysaccharide powder of average particle size ≤ 20 µm, the polysaccharide selected from the group consisting of guar gum, pectin, xanthane gum, alginic acid, and carboxymethyl cellulose, and the powder must be obtained by jet pulverization or freeze pulverization. Dependent claims narrow the polysaccharide (claims 2, 10, 11), narrow average particle size (claims 6–9: 15 µm, 10 µm, 1–15 µm, 1–10 µm), and quantify the oil-absorption reduction (claims 12, 13: "at least approximately 14.8%" and "approximately 14.8–36.6%"). Claim 14 adds at least one non-polysaccharide component (egg/egg-derivative proteins, gliadin, fatty-acid esters of glycerol, enzymatically decomposed lecithin, or spray-dried powdered animal/vegetable fat). Because no IPR was ever instituted, NO claim of 7,820,217 has been canceled, narrowed by the PTAB, or held unpatentable. Every claim — 1 through 14 — is technically "untested" at the Board. That is a neutral-to-useful posture only for as long as the patent is asserted; it says nothing about validity, and any future invalidity theory must be built from scratch in district court or before the examiner, not imported from a PTAB record.

Estoppel landscape. There is none arising from the PTAB, because no petitioner ever filed. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner who filed and was instituted (or settled after institution); with zero proceedings, there is no estopped party and no ground "raised or reasonably could have raised" that is off the table for anyone. The practical corollary: every prior-art ground remains fully available to a defendant — subject only to ordinary district-court estoppel/IPR-timing rules if you choose to file. But given the patent's lapse, the more efficient path is a enforceability challenge, not a merits invalidity fight.

Pattern signals. No pattern to detect: no repeat petitioner, no patent-owner PTAB appeals, and no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain. The "Cited By" set (US 2012/0082767 and WO 2023/044113 on pea protein, etc.) shows the technical field remains active, but none of those cites are proceedings against this patent. The patent family is narrow (one US application; CN, AU, WO counterparts), and the AU and WO members are noted as abandoned/ceased — consistent with a patent that was never a litigation-grade asset.

Recommended next steps

1. Treat the 2018-10-26 lapse as the lead argument. Request the patent owner produce a maintenance-fee payment receipt and any petition to revive. If none exists, the patent is unenforceable and the demand is meritless on its face. Cite the PTO legal-event record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7820217/en (Legal Events: LAPS 2018-12-03; FP 2018-12-25, effective 2018-10-26).
2. If the demand targets pre-lapse conduct (on or before 2018-10-26), build a district-court invalidity case from the ground up. The prosecution history itself supplies strong § 103 fodder: the examiner and applicant drew a bright line at "average particle size ≤ 20 µm" over coarse-particle polysaccharide art (the specification expressly criticizes prior polysaccharides at "average particle size: 50 to 100 µm"), so obviousness arguments targeting that particle-size cutoff and the jet/freeze-pulverization limitation are the natural attack. The references cited on the face of the patent — JP 2002-315527, JP 2002-017284, JP 2002-291433, JP 2003-023987, JP H5-328914, JP H8-154610, and US 6,025,007 — are the obvious starting set.
3. For prospective conduct, no PTAB step is possible or needed. The Board cannot invalidate an expired patent; the correct move is a Rule 11 / § 285 posture against a demand letter asserting a lapsed patent.
4. Confirm with the definitive PTO sources before relying on any of this. Because ODP ingest can lag, I recommend one manual check of the PTAB E2E portal (https://ptacts.uspto.gov) and the USPTO PatentCenter fee/maintenance history for US 10/565,383. If a recently-filed petition exists that neither ODP nor my searches surfaced, it would appear there — but as of 2026-10-01 the record is no PTAB activity on file.

Fabrication note: no proceeding numbers, judge panels, FWDs, settlement terms, or appeal dockets are reported above because none exist in the record I could verify. Any specific IPR/PGR number attributed to US 7,820,217 should be treated as suspect until confirmed on PTAB E2E.

I'll verify the assignment record and assignee status before reconstructing the chain.

Let me check for litigation, inventor details, and any post-issuance transfer records.

Assignment & Ownership Reconstruction — US 7,820,217 B2 ("Conditioning agent for fry food")

Scope note on sources. I reconstructed this chain from the Google Patents legal-events register (which mirrors the USPTO assignment record) plus corroborating corporate and patent-family data. I was not able to open the USPTO Assignment Center record directly in this session, so the correspondent-of-record field is a documented gap rather than a negative finding — see the caveat under signal #3. No litigated record for this patent surfaced in any search.

Inventors

Name-collision warning: a separate "Takanori Kawai" appears in the patent-leaderboard data as a Yazaki/Toyota electrical-components inventor (12 US patents, 2008–2024). That is a different person in a different technology class (H01/H02 wiring harnesses) and should not be merged with the food-science inventor here.

Unusual patterns: none. The inventor set remains tied to the assignee, and there is no evidence of inventor departure / fire-sale precursor — no follow-on assignee, no separate inventor-held assignment, and the inventors did not retain any rights per the recorded conveyance ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST").

Original assignee

Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd. — named on the issued patent, and still the owner (see timeline).

• Primary line of business: manufacture and sale of food ingredients — emulsifiers, stabilizers/thickening polysaccharides, processed egg products, instant-food ingredients, functional nutrition ingredients (catechin, theanine, dietary fiber). The patented subject matter (pulverized polysaccharide oil-absorption control for fried foods) sits squarely inside Taiyo Kagaku's Interface Solutions and Natural Ingredients divisions.
• Product embodiment: yes, credible. The company's own commercial line includes "thickening stabilizers" and freeze-ground/fine-powder ingredient products; the patent's examples use the company's own emulsifier products (SUNSOFT No. 8000, referenced in Test Example 2). Supply-chain records show the company commercially shipping "SUNFIBER partially hydrolysed guar gum — guar gum treated and pulverised," which is the same technological lane.
• Current status: operating, publicly listed. Ticker 2902 on the Nagoya Stock Exchange; FY2026 TTM revenue ≈ US$348M; ~870–1,120 employees; HQ 800 Yamada-cho, Yokkaichi, Mie 512-1111, Japan. No bankruptcy, no acquisition, no dissolution. Current leadership is Yamazaki family-controlled (Nagahiro Yamazaki, Chairman).

Assignment timeline

One assignment is recorded against this patent. There are no post-issuance assignments, no security interests, no licenses, and no corrective filings in the record I can access.

• 2005-10-04 → 2005-10-11 (executed) / recorded 2006-01-23 — Reel 017484 / Frame 0700
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST) — inventor-to-company, original prosecution-chain assignment
  • Assignor: KAWAI, TAKANORI; MIYAMOTO, KEIICHI; KOUNO, HIROMICHI; and others (i.e., HAGI, TAKASHI) — four named inventors
  • Assignee: TAIYO KAGAKU CO., LTD. (Japan)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in the record retrieved. The Google Patents legal-event entry records only the reel/frame and the free-form text "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS' INTEREST…REEL/FRAME:017484/0700;SIGNING DATES FROM 20051004 TO 20051011." No attorney/agent name, firm, or address is surfaced. This is a data gap, not evidence of an anonymous filing — it must be confirmed directly at the Assignment Center (search by patent number 7820217). Because there is only one link in the chain, no recurrence test is possible regardless of what the correspondent turns out to be.
  • Context: Internal/original prosecution assignment — inventors conveying to their employer. Not a sale, not a securitization, not a transfer to an asserter. Ownership never left Taiyo Kagaku thereafter.

Subsequent non-assignment legal events (for completeness):

• 2010-10-26 — Patent granted; US 2006/0182853 A1 pre-grant publication 2006-08-17.
• 2011-12-01 — Fee-payment procedure; large-entity owner status recorded.
• 2014-03-26 — 4th-year maintenance fee paid.
• 2018-12-03 — Lapsed for failure to pay maintenance fees (37 CFR 1.362); effective 2018-10-26. Adjusted expiration had been listed as 2025-05-19, so the patent died ~7 years early by non-payment — the classic signature of an owner that had stopped valuing the asset.

Foreign family status (co-owned, all now dead or dormant): CN100384343C, AU2003252252A1 (abandoned), WO2005009142A1 (PCT, ceased). This is a single-owner family throughout — no divergence of national-phase rights to third parties.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7820217
    2003 : PCT application filed by Taiyo Kagaku
    2005 : Inventors execute assignment to employer
    2006 : Assignment recorded Reel 017484 Frame 0700
    2010 : Patent issued as US 7820217 B2
    2018 : Patent lapsed for unpaid maintenance fees

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No assignment out of Taiyo Kagaku exists in the record. The only recorded conveyance (Reel 017484/0700) runs to the operating company, not to any "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" vehicle. No single-purpose LLC appears anywhere in the chain.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither the original assignee nor any successor matches the Acacia / Marathon / IV / IPNav / Wi-LAN / Conversant / Vringo / Pendrell / Round Rock / MPHJ / Lumen View / Spangenberg family of entities. No RPX or Unified Patents high-frequency-plaintiff listing for Taiyo Kagaku surfaced.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear (unverifiable). With only one recorded assignment there is no chain in which a correspondent could recur, so this signal cannot be present. Separately, the correspondent of record for Reel 017484/0700 is not exposed in the source I retrieved. Confirming the name is worthwhile for completeness but would not change the signal classification given the single-link chain. What is notable is the absence of any repeat-player NPE prosecution/recording firm in the broad file history retrieved (citations, family, related documents).

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Exactly one recorded assignment, executed 2005-10-04/11 and recorded 2006-01-23, with no subsequent transfers across the following 19 years.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming US 7,820,217 was found. The sole assignment was executed in October 2005, roughly five years before issuance (2010-10-26) and six years before any conceivable assertion window — it is a prosecution-chain formality, not a venue- or standing-arranging transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Taiyo Kagaku is a going concern with strong financials (FY2026 revenue ≈ US$348M; net income ≈ US$34.6M; total debt ≈ US$2.4M). No Chapter 7/11, no portfolio sale. The patent's death (2018 lapse) was a voluntary abandonment-by-non-payment decision, not a distressed sale.

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer to a third-party assertion vehicle, and no SEC/Patent Progress/EFF coverage of Taiyo Kagaku funding litigation through an NPE.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at the original operating owner, and then at expiration.

Noise to disregard: the "Cited By," "Families Citing this family," and "Similar Documents" lists (e.g., Pea-protein fat-absorption patents to Proteus Industries and Kemin; a Sun Microsystems network-bridging patent; various Nissin/Kaneka filings) are citation relationships only — they are not recorded assignments and create no ownership link to this patent.

Verdict

Insufficient data — but with a clean, non-NPE ownership picture. Under the definitions given, this patent falls in the "only the original assignment" bucket: the entire recorded chain is a single inventor → employer conveyance at Reel 017484 / Frame 0700 (executed 2005-10-04/11, recorded 2006-01-23), with zero post-issuance transfers. None of the eight NPE/privateering signals is present on the evidence; the owner is a publicly traded, revenue-generating food-ingredient manufacturer (Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd., Nagoya SE ticker 2902) that appears to have sold product in the claimed lane. The patent's story is not an NPE story — it is an operating company letting an asset lapse for unpaid maintenance fees effective 2018-10-26.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 7820217; the only expected hit is Reel 017484/0700). Confirm the correspondent name there if a full recording-file audit is required.

I'll research each cited prior-art reference for US 7,820,217. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me search the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 7,820,217 B2 ("Conditioning agent for fry food")

0. Database-search note (before the analysis)

I attempted to retrieve the specific record US 7,820,217 / application 10/565,383. The record returned is consistent across the sources that mirror the USPTO file: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US7820217B2/en), FreePatentsOnline (freepatentsonline.com/7820217.html), Justia (pre-grant pub. 20060182853), and Patents-Review.

• Patent: US 7,820,217 B2
• Application: 10/565,383; PCT/JP2003/009362 (WO 2005/009142 A1)
• Filing/priority: 2003-07-24 → Grant: 2010-10-26
• "Patent Citations (10)" as listed on the face of the patent (these are the references I was asked to analyze).

Because the file's own citation table is the authoritative list, I anchor on those 10 references. All 10 published before the 2003-07-24 priority/filing date, so each is facially available as prior art. I was able to retrieve and verify the content of five of them; for the other five (mostly Japanese-language publications) I could not obtain the full text within this session and say so explicitly below rather than guess.

Important framing for the § 102 question. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a single reference to disclose every element of the claim as arranged. The granted independent claims are narrow; claim 1 requires the concurrence of:

1. a polysaccharide selected from a 5-member Markush group — guar gum, pectin, xanthane gum, alginic acid, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC);
2. average particle size ≤ 20 µm;
3. the powder obtained by jet pulverization or freeze pulverization; and
4. a functional result — reduced oil absorption + increased mouthfeel + increased taste vs. a >20 µm, non-jet/freeze-pulverized comparator.

No single cited reference discloses all four. Accordingly, my conclusion is that none of the 10 references anticipates any granted claim outright; several are strong § 103 obviousness references, and I identify which claims each most directly bears on. I flag that conclusion honestly rather than forcing a § 102 mapping.

1. The 10 cited references — citation, dates, description, claim mapping

Reference 1 — JP H05-328914 A (Kanegafuchi Chemical Industry)

Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application JP H05-328914 A, "吸油量の少ない揚げ物食品及びそれに用いる組成物" ("Fried food having low oil absorption and composition therefor"), appl. JP 4167002 (1992-06-01), published 1993-12-14, status withdrawn.

Description: The snack/fried-food analogue of the patent's Background's first citation (the US 7,820,217 specification expressly cites "Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. Hei 5-328914"). It teaches reducing oil absorption in fried foods — doughnuts, curry bread, fried shrimp, croquettes, tempura — by adding, to the dough/batter (and, for coated fries, the bread dough), an emulsifier at least partly in a liquid-crystal or α-crystal-gel state (glycerin fatty-acid esters, sorbitan fatty-acid esters, polyglycerol fatty-acid esters, sucrose fatty-acid esters, propylene glycol fatty-acid esters, stearyl organic-acid esters and salts), optionally with a protease, an amylase, and/or a water-retaining agent. The stated mechanism is the liquid-crystal/α-crystal morphology interacting with gluten and starch.

§ 102 assessment: Does not anticipate any granted claim. It contains no polysaccharide powder, no ≤ 20 µm particle-size requirement, and no jet- or freeze-pulverization step — three of the four elements of claim 1 are absent.
§ 103 relevance: Restricted to claim 14, whose "consisting essentially of" list includes "fatty acid esters of glycerol." JPH05328914 explicitly discloses glycerin fatty-acid esters as the oil-absorption-reducing additive in fried-food dough/batter, so it is the natural reference for the added-component feature of claim 14 (though claim 14 still independently requires the ≤ 20 µm, jet-/freeze-pulverized polysaccharide).

Reference 2 — JP H08-154610 A (Matsutani Chemical Industry)

Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application JP H08-154610 A, "Coating material for fried food," appl. 1994-12-12, published 1996-06-18.

Description: Cited in the US 7,820,217 Background as the method "comprising combining a soluble starch of which 10% by weight solution has a viscosity of 300 cps or less, together with a high-viscosity starch, to be used a battering material for a deep-fried food." So its subject matter is a starch-based frying/battering material for oil control.

§ 102 assessment: Does not anticipate any granted claim. Critically, starch — the polysaccharide of this reference — is not within the claim 1 Markush group (guar gum, pectin, xanthane gum, alginic acid, CMC). The granted claims deliberately dropped the specification's broad "starch or a processed product thereof" class. Nor is there a ≤ 20 µm particle-size or jet/freeze-pulverization teaching.
§ 103 relevance: General background showing that formulating a frying coating/batter with a polysaccharide to reduce oil uptake was known; useful against any claim the examiner might try to read broadly, but weak against the five-member Markush group.

Reference 3 — US 6,025,007 A (FMC Corporation)

Full citation: US 6,025,007 A, "Cellulose composition, its preparation and its use in foods," appl. 08/683,513 filed 1996-05-28, granted 2000-02-15, FMC Corporation.

Description: A dry, free-flowing aggregate of finely divided microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) co-processed with a surfactant (e.g., sodium stearoyl lactylate, mono/diglycerides, lecithin, sorbitan esters, polysorbates, sucrose esters, propylene glycol monoesters, polyglycerol esters). Claims recite MCC with mean particle size 0.1–0.9 µm and recovered aggregates of mean size 5–30 µm. Uses: texturizing/thickening/stabilizing/gelling/bulking agents, including in "edible lipid food systems and reduced fat food systems."

§ 102 assessment: Does not anticipate any granted claim. (i) The polysaccharide is microcrystalline cellulose, which is not "carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)" as recited in claim 1 — MCC is unsubstituted, CMC is the carboxymethyl ether; the US 7,820,217 specification itself lists them as distinct species. (ii) The functionality is texturizing/thickening in dairy, dressings, frozen desserts, etc. — not reduced oil absorption in a fried food. (iii) No jet/freeze pulverization. (iv) No functional limitation as to increased mouthfeel/taste in fried food.
§ 103 relevance: Modest — it establishes that particulates of controlled, sub-30 µm size were used in foods and in reduced-fat systems, which helps show that "small particle size" was an available design variable, but the field is only tangentially related to deep-frying and the species do not overlap.

References 4, 5, and 6 — the Kibun "alginic ester" family (EP 1 010 370 A2 / JP 2000-236821 A / US 2002/0001659 A1)

These three citations are the same inventive family (Kibun Food Chemifa; inventor Takahashi Kozo et al.), so I analyze them together; they are the closest prior art on the face of the patent.

Full citations:

• EP 1 010 370 A2, "Oil absorption retarder containing alginic ester," appl. EP 99119702.1 filed 1999-10-05, claiming JP 31311098 priority 1998-11-04, published 2000-06-21. (Granted as EP 1 010 370 B1 / DE 699 30 452 T2; family member US 6,497,910 B2.)
• JP 2000-236821 A, "Oil absorption inhibitor," 1998-11-04 → published 2000-09-05.
• US 2002/0001659 A1, "Oil absorption retarded" (Kozo Takahashi), published 2002-01-03.

Description (verified): An oil-absorption retarder containing an alginic ester (propylene-glycol alginate, commercial name "Duck Loid"), added to dough, batter, or noodle formulations to retard oil absorption during frying and to yield fried foods with lowered oil content and improved texture. The reference is directly on-point for the problem the US 7,820,217 patent addresses and even discloses the same food types (tempura, doughnut, instant/instant-fried noodles). Two points are especially notable:

1. Particle-size dependence is expressly taught. The DE 699 30 452 T2 translation of the granted case reports a doughnut experiment tabulating oil uptake vs. alginic-ester particle size (sieved fractions), concluding that the oil-absorption-retarding effect "was remarkable in the cases where alginic ester with particle sizes equal to or less than 125 µm was added" — with the tested fractions running from 250 µm down to 63 µm, and the smallest fractions giving the best result (relative oil absorption falling to ~72% of control). The composition is described as a powder/sieve-passed material in the 20 µm–250 µm sieve range.

2. The active species is an ester, not the acid. Alginic ester (propylene glycol alginate) differs from "alginic acid," which claim 1/claim 2 of US 7,820,217 recite. The US 7,820,217 specification lists "alginic acid" and "alginic acid ester of propylene glycol" as separate enumerated species, confirming they are not the same compound.

§ 102 assessment — the pivotal issue:

• Against claim 1: No anticipation. Even though this is the nearest art, it fails § 102 on at least three independent elements: (a) the species is an ester of alginic acid, not "alginic acid" (and it is likewise not pectin/guar/xanthan/CMC); (b) the smallest particle size actually disclosed/tested is ~63 µm, and the reference's expressed compositional window is 20–250 µm — it does not disclose or enable an average particle size of ≤ 20 µm; (c) there is no disclosure of making the powder by jet or freeze pulverization (the reference uses conventional sieving/grinding fractions). The functional/result limitation is also not the same formulation of reduced-oil + increased-mouthfeel + increased-taste.
• Against claims 2–14: Anticipation fails a fortiori, since each depends from or replicates the claim 1 elements (and claims 3/4/5 each add a distinct product form).

§ 103 assessment — the real risk: This is the strongest obviousness reference in the set. It (i) is the same technical problem, (ii) is the same class of polysaccharide (an alginate), (iii) teaches the same food types, and (iv) expressly recognizes that smaller particle size improves the oil-absorption-retarding effect — which supplies a direct motivation to go below 125 µm/63 µm toward the claimed ≤ 20 µm. The remaining gap (why the acid rather than the ester, and why jet/freeze pulverization) is what the granted claims hinged on. A validity challenger would argue claims 1–14 are obvious over Kibun in view of an ordinary fine-milling/particle-size-reduction reference — the examiner evidently required the applicant to narrow to the five-member Markush group plus the jet/freeze-pulverization step plus the result limitation, which is consistent with this family being the principal obstacle during prosecution.

Reference 7 — JP 2002-017284 A (Nitto Seifun K.K.)

Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application JP 2002-017284 A, "Coating composition for deep-fried food," appl. 2000-07-05, published 2002-01-22.

Description (from the US 7,820,217 Background, which cites this and No. 2002-315527 as showing that "addition of a polysaccharide to a deep-fried food has been known"): A coating composition for deep-fried foods in which a polysaccharide is used.

§ 102 assessment: No anticipation on the record I can access. The US 7,820,217 specification itself characterizes these conventional polysaccharide additions as using "coarse particles (average particle size: 50 to 100 µm or so)" with poor dispersibility, and the reference is not shown to disclose the five-member Markush species, the ≤ 20 µm average, or jet/freeze pulverization. Content not independently verified this session (I could not retrieve the full Japanese text), so treat the § 102 "no" as preliminary.
§ 103 relevance: Background art for the general concept of a polysaccharide-containing deep-fry coating.

Reference 8 — JP 2002-291433 A (Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd.)

Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application JP 2002-291433 A, "Modifier for fry clothing" (揚げ物衣用改質剤), appl. 2001-03-30, published 2002-10-08, assignee Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd. — the same assignee as US 7,820,217.

Description: Not verified this session; the title denotes a modifier/modifying agent for the coating ("clothing"/batter) of fried foods.

Assessment — flagged as the highest-priority missing item: Because it (a) post-dates the application's own earlier work by the same assignee, (b) is a printed publication dated 2002-10-08 (before the 2003-07-24 US filing), and (c) is directed to a fry-coating modifier, it is potentially the most probative § 102/§ 103 reference against claims 3 (frying powder) and 5 (frying food) if it discloses a ≤ 20 µm, jet-/freeze-pulverized polysaccharide from the claimed group. I cannot state its content or make any § 102 mapping until its full text is pulled. Note also the common-ownership wrinkle: pre-AIA § 103(c) can remove commonly owned art from § 103 consideration only where that art qualifies solely under § 102(e)/(f)/(g); a foreign printed publication qualifies under § 102(a)/(b), so § 103(c) likely would not immunize this reference. Recommend immediate retrieval of JP 2002-291433 A.

Reference 9 — JP 2002-315527 A (Nitto Seifun K.K.)

Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application JP 2002-315527 A, "Coating material for fried food," appl. 2001-04-23, published 2002-10-29, Nitto Seifun K.K.

Description: Not verified this session; title denotes a coating material for fried food. Cited in the US 7,820,217 Background alongside JP 2002-017284 as evidencing known polysaccharide addition to fried foods.

§ 102 assessment: No anticipation on available information, for the same reasons as Reference 7 (coarse conventional polysaccharide; no ≤ 20 µm, no jet/freeze pulverization evidenced). Content not independently verified.
§ 103 relevance: Background art only, in my current assessment.

Reference 10 — JP 2003-023987 A (Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd.)

Full citation: Japanese Unexamined Patent Application JP 2003-023987 A, "Quality improver for fried food," appl. 2001-07-12, published 2003-01-28, assignee Taiyo Kagaku Co., Ltd. — same assignee as US 7,820,217.

Description: Not verified this session; the title ("Quality improver for fried food") is closely parallel to the present patent's own subject matter.

Assessment — second highest-priority missing item: Published 2003-01-28, i.e. before the 2003-07-24 filing, by the same assignee, and directed to a quality improver for fried food. If its disclosure includes a finely pulverized polysaccharide used in frying for oil control, it is a candidate § 102 reference (and, at minimum, § 103 art) against claims 1–14 — particularly claims 3/4/5. Because it is by the same applicant, it also raises the question whether the US national-stage case was a continuation/improvement of this work (a § 102(b) self-collision / double-patenting-type concern, not a § 103(c) safe harbor, since it is a printed publication rather than § 102(e) art). I cannot map it to claims without the text; recommend retrieval.

2. Bottom line on § 102 vs. § 103

• No cited reference anticipates (fully discloses) any granted claim of US 7,820,217. The granted claims' combination — a five-member polysaccharide Markush group + average particle size ≤ 20 µm + jet/freeze pulverization + the reduced-oil/increased-mouthfeel/increased-taste result — is not found in any single one of the 10 references.
• Closest § 102 candidate (and strongest § 103 reference): the Kibun "alginic ester" family — EP 1 010 370 A2 / JP 2000-236821 A / US 2002/0001659 A1. It fails § 102 on species (alginic ester vs. alginic acid), on particle size (smallest disclosed ~63 µm; window 20–250 µm, not ≤ 20 µm average), and on the jet/freeze-pulverization step — but its express teaching that smaller particle size improves oil-absorption retardation is the single most damaging obviousness datum against the patent.
• Claim 14 specifically: the additional-component feature "fatty acid esters of glycerol" is taught by JPH05328914 A (Kanegafuchi), a liquid-crystal/α-crystal emulsifier-based fried-food oil-reduction reference.
• Unexamined but potentially decisive: the two same-assignee Taiyo Kagaku publications JP 2002-291433 A and JP 2003-023987 A (References 8 and 10). These are the references a thorough § 102/§ 103 analysis must read, and I could not retrieve their text in this session.

3. Confidence and explicit limitations

• I verified the substance of References 1, 3, 4, 5 (via family), and 6 through retrieved text.
• I did not retrieve the full text of References 2 (partial), 7, 8, 9, and 10; my descriptions for those rest on the patent's own Background characterizations, titles, and citation metadata. Any § 102 conclusion for those is provisional.
• I did not access the USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier API directly; the record I used mirrors it and is internally consistent with the authoritative full text supplied. If a certified USPTO file-wrapper-based citations table is required, it should be re-pulled directly.
• Anticipation is a single-reference test; I have stated clearly where a reference is really § 103 material rather than § 102. I have not performed a full claim-by-claim written-description/enablement or validity opinion, and the "which claim(s)" mappings above are preliminary relevance mappings, not legal conclusions.

I'll research the cited prior art references to ground the obviousness analysis.

Let me examine the key cited references in more detail.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,820,217 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Building on the earlier summary and litigation sections; I do not repeat the claim set or bibliographic data below. This analysis is based on the "Prior Art" (Patent Citations) section of the Google Patents page and on the reference texts I was able to retrieve.

A. Threshold legal framing

Governing law. The application was filed (and the PCT published) on 2003‑07‑24, well before the AIA first‑to‑file date of 2013‑03‑16. The patent is therefore governed by pre‑AIA § 102/§ 103, with obviousness assessed under Graham v. John Deere as refined by KSR Int'l v. Teleflex (2007). All ten references in the page's Patent Citations list pre‑date 2003‑07‑24:

One legal nuance that materially affects the strength of the case (flagging explicitly). The two most on‑point references (JP2003023987A and JP2002291433A) are Taiyo Kagaku's own publications, and both published within one year of the 2003‑07‑24 U.S. filing. Neither is therefore a § 102(b) statutory bar. Whether they are § 102(a) art turns on (i) whether their inventive entity is "another" relative to Kawai/Miyamoto/Kouno/Hagi, and (ii) whether the applicant could swear behind them under Rule 131 (the JP parents were filed 2001‑03‑30 and 2001‑07‑12). I do not have the JP front pages or the U.S. file wrapper, so I cannot confirm whether these references were actually applied or whether applicant antedated them — but the strength of the obviousness case is directly tied to that question. If they do not qualify, the case must rest on the Kibun/Kanegafuchi/Nitto Seifun "by others" references plus routine skill.

Level of ordinary skill. A food‑science formulator with a B.S. in food science/chemistry and 2–5 years' experience in batter/coating and starch‑hydrocolloid formulation, familiar with commercial pulverization equipment (ball, hammer, jet, freeze mills) and with the standard set of food hydrocolloids.

Effect of the earlier summary. Consistent with it: claim 1 is a narrow Markush + product‑by‑process ("obtained by jet or freeze pulverization") + result‑based limitation. I read the "obtained by" language as a product‑by‑process recitation and the closing clause as a comparative result limitation — both materially affect the obviousness analysis (§ D–F below).

B. The single‑reference case — JP2003023987A

On its face, JP2003023987A discloses a fry‑food quality improver comprising a fine powder of average particle size ≤20 μm produced by 気流粉砕 (air‑current/jet pulverization) or 凍結粉砕 (freeze pulverization), where the fine‑powder material is selected from powdered proteins, powdered thickeners (糊料), powdered starches, and animal/vegetable powdered fats and oils, adhered to a ≥20 μm core powder. Its worked example mixes 98 g corn starch with 2 g of the fine pulverized thickening stabilizer as a dredging powder for tonkatsu; and the description shows the same guar‑gum/pectin fine powders used in the later U.S. patent.

Because a composition claim open to "comprising" reads on that mixture, JP2003023987A is arguably anticipatory of claim 1 to the extent a thickener from the five‑member Markush is used; the only structural difference is the presence of the core particle, which does not remove the recited fine powder from the composition. That is a § 102 problem, but it supplies the strongest § 103 baseline: even if one treats the core‑powder feature as a distinction, that distinction is (a) optional/functional (flowability of the powder blend, not oil‑barrier performance) and (b) expressly disclosed as a conventional carrier technique in the same art.

C. Principal § 103 combinations

Combination 1 — JP2003023987A + JP2002291433A (primary case for claims 1, 2, 6–11)

What the combination teaches. JP2003023987A supplies every structural element of claim 1 except that the fine powder is carried on a coarse core (jet/freeze‑pulverized, ≤20 μm, thickening‑stabilizer member). JP2002291433A independently teaches that a fry‑coating modifier may itself be a 1–15 μm fine powder of guar gum, xanthan gum, etc. (≥60 wt % within 1–15 μm) — i.e., the bare fine powder claimed. JP2002291433A even supplies the powdered fat/oil carrier.

Motivation. JP2002291433A explains at length that coarse hydrocolloid powders disperse and dissolve poorly in cold batter water, causing unstable batter viscosity and gluten elution (そのため…分散し、粘度の発現が安定なフライ衣用の改質剤が望まれていた). That is an express reason to use finer hydrocolloid powder in fry coatings. A PHOSITA reading JP2003023987A (same assignee, same fried‑food quality‑improver context) and JP2002291433A together would have every reason to use the ≤20 μm jet/freeze‑pulverized thickener powder as such, with or without a carrier, because the particle‑size reduction is presented as the source of the benefit (better dispersion, low aggregation). The claimed "bare powder" is a mere omission of an optional carrier ingredient — the classic In re Bergstrom/In re Klamann‑type "obvious to use one component of a two‑component prior art system."

Combination 2 — JP2003023987A + EP1010370A2 (or its JP/US family JP2000236821A / US2002/0001659A1)

Supplies the oil‑absorption motivation, which JP2003023987A itself does not emphasize. EP1010370A2 is directed to an oil‑absorption retarder containing alginic ester for fried foods; US2002/0001659A1 in the same family reports instant‑noodle oil content falling from 19.30 % (none) to 16.81–17.41 % at 0.2–0.4 % alginic ester, doughnut dough examples, and expressly notes the alginic ester "may have a form mixed with alginic acid, alginic acid salt or other alginic acid derivatives." A PHOSITA seeking to reduce oil uptake using an alginate‑type hydrocolloid, looking to a fried‑food quality improver, would combine these. This combination most directly renders claim 2 (alginic acid/pectin) obvious and, with claim 1's Markush, the other members.

Combination 3 — JP2002291433A + EP1010370A2 (+ JPH05328914A) (case that does not depend on the Taiyo Kagaku volume citations)

Even setting JP2003023987A aside, JP2002291433A teaches the fine‑powder‑in‑fry‑coating element and EP1010370A2 teaches that a polysaccharide (alginic ester) reduces oil uptake in fried dough/noodles; JPH05328914A establishes that reducing oil absorption in fried foods by additive formulation was a recognized objective as of 1993. The remaining step — "make the powder finer than the coarse 50–100 μm commercial material" — is the optimization of a result‑effective variable (In re Aller, In re Woodruff): the specification itself concedes that polysaccharides were already added to deep‑fried foods and that conventionally used ones were coarse and aggregated. Choosing a known particle‑size range for a known hydrocolloid to improve dispersibility, with all pulverization routes (ball, jet, freeze) conventional, is routine.

Combination 4 — Claim 14's additional components

Claim 14's "at least one component" list (egg white, egg‑white hydrolysate, egg yolk, whole egg, whey/wheat protein, gliadin, glycerol fatty‑acid esters, enzymatically decomposed lecithin, powdered animal/vegetable fat or oil) is described in the specification itself as "various components which are generally used for improving quality of the deep‑fried food" — an admission that they are conventional. Independently:

• JPH05328914A teaches glycerol fatty‑acid esters, sorbitan/polyglycerol/sucrose/propylene‑glycol fatty‑acid esters as the oil‑absorption‑reducing agents in fried‑food dough and batter — the same chemical families recited in claim 14.
• JP2002291433A teaches a fine hydrocolloid powder carried on powdered fat/oil — the powdered animal/vegetable fat‑or‑oil element.
• Notably, JP2002078460A (Taiyo Kagaku, "Quality improver for fried food") claims an egg‑white powder of average particle size ≤20 μm obtained by air‑current (jet) or freeze pulverization for fried foods — the egg‑white element in the identical physical form. Although JP2002078460A is not in the page's cited list, I surfaced it in search and it is highly material to claim 14; it should be verified and, if by another (or otherwise qualifying), added to the combination.

Because claim 14 is "consisting essentially of [claim 1 powder] + at least one conventional adjunct," and the adjuncts are admitted known, this claim adds little beyond claim 1.

D. The functional/result limitations (claims 1, 12, 13)

Claim 1 closes with a requirement that the composition "imparts to deep fried food, reduced oil absorption, increased mouthfeel and increased taste as compared to a composition comprising a polysaccharide powder having an average particle size of more than 20 μm and not being subjected to jet pulverization or freeze pulverization." Claims 12 and 13 quantify that as "at least approximately 14.8 %" and "approximately 14.8–36.6 %."

These limitations are, in substance, the table entries of the working examples:

• 14.8 % = croquette, guar gum 40.5 % → 34.5 % oil (Table 4);
• 36.6 % = doughnut, HM pectin 21.6 % → 13.7 % (Table 2);
• intermediate values: 24.4 % (tempura guar), 30.6 % (noodles, potato starch), 35.0 %/27.5 % (doughnut, guar/GMS control), etc.

Two consequences:

1. A result‑based limitation generally does not confer patentability where the structure producing it is obvious. Under KSR, "if a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability," and where the claimed and prior‑art products are substantially identical, the burden shifts. The specification states the mechanism was not elucidated but deduces it from "low aggregability" and "excellent dispersibility" — i.e., the result is asserted to follow inherently from finer, less‑aggregated powder. The difference over the coarse comparator is therefore a difference in degree with a predictable direction.
2. Claims 12–13 claim the experimental spread itself. The 14.8–36.6 % window is not tied to any structural feature distinguishing one polysaccharide from another; it is simply the observed minimum and maximum across four food systems. Such a range, derived from the results of the disclosed examples, is a hallmark of a non‑limiting result‑based recitation.

E. Claim‑by‑claim conclusion

F. Why a PHOSITA would have been motivated (KSR factors)

1. Same field of endeavor, same problem. All ten references address quality/oil‑pickup of fried foods; several are literally "quality improver for fried food," "coating composition for deep‑fried food," "oil absorption retarder."
2. Common ownership and shared laboratory for JP2003023987A and JP2002291433A (Taiyo Kagaku), which is powerful evidence that a PHOSITA would look to both (even though common ownership alone does not shield § 102(a)/(b) publications — pre‑AIA § 103(c) excludes only § 102(e)/(f)/(g) art).
3. Explicit direction to the claimed parameter. JP2003023987A expressly names ≤20 μm and the jet‑ or freeze‑pulverization routes; JP2002291433A expressly names 1–15 μm for guar/xanthan in fry coatings. The claimed range is thus disclosed, not discovered.
4. A recognized, articulated reason for the modification. JP2002291433A states that coarser hydrocolloid powders are poorly dispersible in cold water and give unstable results — the precise rationale the '217 specification uses ("low aggregability… excellent dispersibility").
5. Predictability and a finite set of options. The five‑member Markush and the pulverization techniques (ball, hammer, jet, freeze) are a small, known set; KSR makes "obvious to try" dispositive where the variation is predictable and the technique is a "known option."

G. Counterarguments the patentee would raise, and responses

• Teaching away / carrier requirement. JP2003023987A and JP2002291433A both use a carrier (coarse core, powdered oil). The patentee may argue the art teaches that a carrier is required. Response: the carrier is disclosed for flowability/powder‑mixing reasons, not for oil‑barrier function; neither reference disparages a bare fine powder, so there is no teaching away (In re Fulton — a reference teaches away only if the proposed modification would be expected to destroy the reference's purpose).
• Unexpected magnitude. The examples show sizeable reductions (e.g., 40 % in tempura vs. no additive). Response: the comparison most relevant to claim 1 is fine vs. coarse powder, where the gains are ~14.8–36.6 % and directional; the specification itself disclaims knowledge of the mechanism, weakening any "unexpected mechanism" argument.
• Objective indicia. The record I retrieved shows no litigation, no licensing, no commercial‑success or copying evidence, and the patent expired on 2018‑12‑03 for non‑payment of maintenance fees (effective 2018‑10‑26). Absent such evidence, secondary considerations cannot be weighed.
• Result‑clause "patentable weight." The patentee would argue the comparative clause narrows the claim. Response: a limitation reciting the result of the structural difference, with no independent structural definition, is generally not entitled to weight in the § 103 analysis; and claims 12–13 merely recite the example data.

H. Caveats and limits of this analysis

1. Prior‑art availability is not established. As explained in § A, the two strongest references are the patentee's own earlier JP publications within the grace year. Confirm (a) inventorship overlap and (b) whether a Rule 131/§ 1.131 antedating showing was or could be made. If both references are disqualified, the case weakens to Combination 3, which is circumstantial on the particle‑size element.
2. I did not read the full texts of US6025007A (FMC), JP2002017284A, JP2002315527A, JPH08154610A, or JP2000236821A. Their mapping above is based on bibliographic data and titles; the FMC and Nitto Seifun references are probable but not confirmed as teaching the specific fine‑powder concept.
3. Prosecution history is unavailable. The granted claim 1 (Markush + product‑by‑process + result clause) is far narrower than published application claims [1]–[3], which strongly suggests amendment over art; I cannot confirm which reference(s) drove that amendment, or what the examiner's stated rejections were.
4. Reference dates. I verified the JP2002291433A, JP2003023987A, JPH05328914A and EP1010370A2 disclosures from retrieved text/abstracts; the exact publication date of the newly surfaced JP2002335896A (a Taiyo Kagaku "quality improver for fried food" of average particle size ≤20 μm and jet‑/freeze‑pulverized hydrocolloids, with example data matching this patent's) and of JP2002078460A should be independently confirmed before reliance.
5. No § 101/112 opinion is offered, though I note the result‑based claims 12–13 invite written‑description/enablement scrutiny across the full Markush.

Bottom line: On the cited art, claims 1–13 are, in my assessment, reasonably likely obvious over JP2003023987A in view of JP2002291433A and/or EP1010370A2 (& family), and claim 14 over JPH05328914A and JP2002291433A (and JP2002078460A, outside the cited list) — subject to the threshold question of whether the Taiyo Kagaku references qualify as prior art given the grace year and common‑inventor issues. Absent those two references, the case relies on the Kibun/Kanegafuchi oil‑absorption references plus the In re Aller optimization rationale and is correspondingly weaker.