Appeal No. 2003-1266
Application No. 09/735,054
F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens,
622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980).
For the above reasons we conclude that the method claimed in
the appellants’ claim 15 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art over Reed ‘453 in view of Yatka.
Rejection of claims 1-5, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hopkins in view of
Reed ‘453, Reed ‘508 or Reed ‘406
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall
separately (brief, page 6), but the appellants do not separately
argue the patentability of the claims. We therefore limit our
discussion to one claim, i.e., claim 1. See In re Ochiai, 71
F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995);
37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Hopkins discloses a sugarless chewing gum product comprising
a water-soluble portion and a water-insoluble portion (col. 1,
lines 6-10; col. 3, lines 66-67; col. 6, lines 4-7). Exemplary
chewing gums include hydrogenated starch hydrolysate and sorbitol
powder (col. 6, lines 50-59; col. 7, lines 1-12, 20-30 and 57-
67). These chewing gums contain 0.1-2 wt% lecithin as a
softener, and there is no indication that this is an aqueous
softener.
Page 12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007