Appeal No. 2003-1012 Page 3
Application No. 09/340,111
also include a buffer system, such as acetic or citric acids, and sweeteners such
as sucrose, glucose or saccharin. See Examiner’s Answer, page 3.
The rejection goes on to note that the reference “does not teach
specifically that the sweetener acts as the anti-irritant in the composition,” but
asserts that the reference teaches that “the removal of calculus deposits will treat
inflammation.” Id. at 3-4. The rejection also asserts that while the Ebetino
reference does not teach the specific amount of sweetener present in the
anticalculus composition, it would only require minimal experimentation to
determine those levels, and “[t]he results must be those that accrue from the
specific limitations.” Id. at 4.
The rejection concludes:
The reference teaches acetic and citric acids, along with
their salts as possible buffering systems. It is well known in the art
that a buffering solution comprises a weak acid and the salt of that
weak acid, and that buffering solutions have a maximum and
minimum pH. Attached is an excerpt from Method in Enzymology,
which discloses the pH ranges for both acetic and citric buffer
solutions. The acetic buffer allows a range from 3.6 to 5.6, and the
citric buffer allows a range from 3.0 to 6.2. Therefore, as the
reference teaches that these buffers can be employed in their
composition, and these buffers are known to cause acidic pH
levels, the limitation to an acidic solution is disclosed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
use the composition disclosed by [Ebetino], containing sweeteners,
in order to treat inflammation caused by calculus on teeth. One of
ordinary skill in the art would have expected the inflammation to
lessen due to the removal or loosening of the calculus. Therefore,
the invention as a whole would have [been] [sic] prima facie
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made.
Id. at 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007