Ex parte TAKEUCHI et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 94-4307                                                           
          Application 07/919,267                                                       


          is incumbent upon the examiner to identify wherein each and every            
          facet of the claimed invention is disclosed in the applied                   
          reference.  Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and             
          Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).            
               In the claims on appeal, an effective amount of the                     
          chitosan, hydrolyzed chitosan or a mixture thereof is added to a             
          solution containing thaumatin and a substance which decreases the            
          sweetness of thaumatin to prevent the decrease in sweetness of               
          thaumatin.  The examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C.                 
           102(b) as being anticipated by the Japanese Laid Open                      
          Application 2-174649.  The reference teaches adding chitosan to a            
          solution (e.g. apple juice) containing thaumatin to prevent                  
          coagulation and separation of thaumatin when it is used in the               
          presence of negatively-charged substances (e.g. apple juice).                
          The reference does not disclose adding hydrolyzed chitosan or a              
          mixture of hydrolyzed chitosan and chitosan to a solution                    
          containing thaumatin.  Nor does the reference disclose that a                
          substance which decreases the sweetness of thaumatin is present              
          in a solution containing thaumatin when chitosan is added.  Since            
          the examiner has not established that each and every facet of the            
          claimed invention is disclosed in the applied reference, we                  
          cannot agree with the examiner that the claimed subject matter               

                                           4                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007