Appeal No. 2003-1266
Application No. 09/735,054
The appellants argue that Hopkins discloses that the chewing
gum optionally can contain liquid sorbitol (brief, page 16; reply
brief, pages 2-3). This argument is not well taken because
Hopkins discloses a chewing gum composition which contains
sorbitol powder and is free of liquid sorbitol (col. 6, lines 50-
59; col. 7, lines 1-12, 20-30 and 57-67).
We therefore conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness
of the appellants’ claimed invention over Hopkins in view of each
Reed patent has been established and has not been effectively
rebutted by the appellants. Hence, we affirm the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hopkins in view of each Reed patent.
Rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Hopkins in view of Reed ‘453, Reed ‘508 or Reed ‘406,
further in view of Yatka
The appellants argue that Yatka does not remedy the
deficiencies in Hopkins and the Reed patents as to claim 13 from
which claim 15 depends. For the reasons given above regarding
the rejection of claim 1 over Hopkins in view of each Reed
patent, we are not persuaded by the appellants’ argument that the
applied references are deficient as to claim 13. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Hopkins in view
of each Reed patent.
Page 14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007