Appeal No. 95-4914
Application No. 08/036,116
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that Israeli
application does not reasonably convey to the artisan a
description of a droplet comprising "about 0.1 to 10% of a
second component of an emulsifier", as set forth in appealed
claim 1. See the answer at page 11. We also agree with the
examiner that the exemplification of lecithin as a dispersant 6
in a composition described in the Israeli application does not
reasonably convey to the artisan a description of the more
comprehensive subgenus of phospholipid compound emulsifiers
recited in appealed claim 5. We further agree with the
examiner that the Israeli application contains no description
of a "physiologically acceptable inorganic thickening agent"
component as required by appealed claim 18. Therefore, except
for appealed claim 35, which was not rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, de Vringer is competent prior art against the appealed
claims so rejected.
Recognizing that de Vringer’s disclosures are highly
relevant to the subject matter defined by the rejected claims
6Lecithins are phosopholipids which are mixtures of
diglycerides of fatty acids linked to the choline ester of
phosphoric acid.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007