Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 Claims 57-61 recite known nutraceutical delivery forms, namely
2 syrup, powdered drink mix, tablet, capsule, and beverage. The Appellants
3 have not put forth any meaningful argument as to why these claims would
4 not have been obvious.
5 Claims 44, 62, and 73 are independent method claims. Claim 44
6 recites “processing” of the claimed ingredients, “providing” another juice,
7 and “combining” into a mixture, claim 62 recites “grinding” the claimed
8 ingredients, “providing another juice, and combining into a mixture, and
9 claim 73 recites “grinding” pericarp, “providing” another juice; and mixing.
10 The Appellants have put forth no persuasive argument explaining why these
11 claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
12 time the invention was made.
13 Claim 73
14 We observe that claim 73 appears to violate 37 CFR § 1.75(g),
15 requiring the least restrictive claim to be claim 1. Despite claim 73’s
16 placement towards the end of the claims, it has not escaped our attention that
17 claim 73 is undoubtedly a broad claim, requiring as ingredients only ground
18 whole mangosteen pericarp and a juice other than mangosteen juice, closely
19 mimicking Example 6 of JP ‘442. The Appellants have not explained why
20 this claim would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
21 the time the invention was made.
22 Finally, the Appellants' characterization of the references as "primary"
23 and "secondary" evidences a misunderstanding of the law. The question
24 before us is not determined by how the examiner has chosen to delineate the
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013