Appeal No. 2003-1266
Application No. 09/735,054
liquid sorbitol, the claimed invention is not anticipated by
Reed” (brief, page 14).
The examiner argues (office action mailed August 10, 2001,
paper no. 3, page 3):
Reed et al discloses a chewing gum product having
a sugarless center including hydrogenated starch
hydrolysate and sorbitol, both present as sugarless
sweeteners. Softeners, e.g. glycerin, and aqueous
sorbitol, are optional. The gum center is coated with
a sugarless hard coating, including hydrogenated
isomaltulose, using a hard coating panning procedure.
For the appellants’ claimed invention to be anticipated by
Reed ‘453, the reference must lead one of ordinary skill in the
art to a product or method which falls within the scope of the
claim “without any need for picking, choosing, and combining
various disclosures not directly related to each other by the
teachings of the cited reference.” In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586,
587, 172 USPQ 524, 526 (CCPA 1972). To arrive at the appellants’
claimed chewing gum product or method from Reed ‘453, however,
one must select the embodiment in which there is no glycerin or
sorbitol solution, and must also select hydrogenated starch
hydrolysate from several sweeteners. The examiner has not
established that the presence of hydrogenated starch hydrolysate
and the absence of glycerin and sorbitol solution are directly
related by Reed ‘453.
Page 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007