Ex Parte FRITZ - Page 5


                 Appeal No. 2002-0534                                                         Page 5                   
                 Application No. 08/551,326                                                                            

                 blood.”  Id.  Finally, the examiner relies on each of Alekseyeva, Hager, Solgar,                      
                 and Corti-PS for their disclosures of soy-derived phosphatidylserine.                                 
                        The examiner concluded that when the cited references are                                      
                        [t]aken together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill                          
                        in the art to provide a soy-derived phosphatidylserine supplement,                             
                        in an appropriate amount, of the purpose of reducing stress-related                            
                        inductions of cortisol, which, as a result, minimizes muscle                                   
                        breakdown, and for additionally providing a source of protein for                              
                        enhancing muscle development during physical training regimens.                                
                        As such, ingestion of a protein supplement in conjunction with a                               
                        soy-derived phosphatidylserine supplement would intrinsically                                  
                        enhance the assimilation of the dietary protein supplement barring                             
                        evidence to the contrary.                                                                      
                 Id., page 9.                                                                                          
                        Appellant argues, inter alia, that the examiner’s rejection is based on                        
                 hindsight (Appeal Brief, pages 11 and 13), that the cited references do not                           
                 suggest the claim limitations requiring ingesting protein along with soy-derived                      
                 phosphatidylserine (see the Appeal Brief, page 14), and that Monteleone’s                             
                 disclosure of intravenously administered phosphatidylserine would not have                            
                 suggested the claimed invention to a “serious sports nutrition specialist of good                     
                 intent” (Appeal Brief, page 15).1                                                                     
                        “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial                     
                 burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.  Only if that burden is                       
                 met, does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the                         
                 applicant.”  In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.                      
                                                                                                                       
                 1 Appellant also argues that he has submitted evidence showing commercial success, recognition        
                 and adoption by others, and long-felt need in the art.  See the Appeal Brief, page 12.  Since we      
                 conclude that the references cited by the examiner do not support a prima facie case of               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007