"Moist pizza" claim remains rejected under Rule 41.50(b)

In Ex parte FRITZ-JUNG, the Board affirmed the Examiner, but on different grounds, as to a claim:

A method comprising:

[step 1] preparing an at least partially baked pizza crust;
[step 2] adding at least one topping to said at least
partially baked pizza crust;
[step 3] covering said at least partially baked pizza crust
and said at least one topping with a moisture
impermeable cover to maintain a moisture content of
said at least partially baked pizza crust and said at least
one topping; (...)

On this record and for the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-25 and 27-30. Because our affirmance is based on
findings and explanations which differ from those of the Examiner, we
denominate the above-listed grounds of rejection 1-6 as a new grounds of
rejection pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). See, e.g., In
re Stepan Co., 660 F.3d 1341, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Leithem, 661
F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011).