Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 No persuasive contrary evidence is provided. Accordingly, we find no error
2 in the initial finding of obviousness based on this argument.
3 The “Teaching Away”
4 The Appellant next urges that the Examiner failed to consider the
5 prior art as a whole in that the prior art “teaches away from the combination
6 cobbled together by the Examiner” (Br. p. 18, ll. 7-9). The principal thrust
7 of this argument is that the rind tastes so bad one would not be led to
8 combine it with the fruit.
9 The Appellant quotes a portion of Yaacob:
10 The method of preparation is to cut carefully across the central
11 part of the woody layer, removing the thick skin without
12 touching the white aril.Care must be taken to prevent the
13 resins or tannins exuded from the cut pericarp coming into
14 contact with the fruit segments. When the segments of the aril
15 are exposed, they can be removed with a fork. The seeds are
16 also edible, after they have been boiled in water. (Br. p. 18, ll.
17 11-16).
18 The Appellant quotes a portion of Duke:
19 The juicy pulp (aril), surround [sic] and adhering to the seed, is
20 the edible part . . . Rind contains enough tannin for tanning
21 leather and is the source of a black dye. (Id. ll. 18-19).
22 The Appellant also urges that several references indicate that pericarp
23 is astringent, and concludes with the argument that the art teaches that the
24 pericarp should not be combined with the edible fruit of the mangosteen.
25 (Br. p. 19, ll. 1-10).
26 We agree with the Appellant that the evidence of record supports a
27 finding that the rind of the mangosteen fruit has a bad taste.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013