Appeal 2007-1610
Application 10/955,833
7. An ingestible composition comprising:
(i) an ingestible vehicle; and
(ii) an organoleptically effective amount of ethyl 3-
mercaptobutyrate represented by the formula,
CH3(SH)CHCH2COOCH2CH3 provided that the ethyl 3-
mercaptobutyrate is not part of a naturally occurring mixture of
compounds or part of a synthetic mixture of compounds which
is the same as the naturally occurring mixture of compounds.
10. The ingestible composition according to claim 7, wherein
the ingestible composition is a beverage product.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Claim 7 is drawn to an ingestible composition comprising (i) an
ingestible vehicle and (ii) ethyl 3-mercaptobutyrate “provided that the ethyl
3-mercaptobutyrate is not part of a naturally occurring mixture of
compounds or a part of a synthetic mixture of compounds which is the same
as the naturally occurring mixture of compounds.”
At issue in this appeal is the proper interpretation of “provided that the
ethyl 3-mercaptobutyrate is not part of a naturally occurring mixture of
compounds.” We give the words in a claim their broadest reasonable
interpretation as they would be understood by persons of skill in the art in
the context of the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, the phrase “naturally
occurring mixture of compounds” does not appear in the Specification as
originally filed. However, “naturally occurring” would be understood by
persons of skill in the art to mean that it exists or is found in nature – that is,
it is “a product of nature” and not “a product of human ingenuity.” Diamond
v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303, 309, 313 (1980). Thus, we interpret a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013