Appeal No. 2003-1561 Page 14
Application No. 09/632,840
Here, the specification does not clearly characterize the feeding
of prior art chewing gums to animals as prior art to appellants.
In light of appellants’ challenge and because the examiner has
not shown where the separately applied references provide the
missing evidence, we conclude that with respect to the rejection
of claims 33-46, the examiner has failed to establish the
obviousness of the claimed method based on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 42 and 46
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as lacking descriptive
support in the application as filed; to reject claims 20-32 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Abdel-Malik; to reject
claims 20-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Shaw; and
to reject claims 20, 21, 23-28 and 30-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Cherukuri or Cook is affirmed. The decision of
the examiner to reject claims 33-37 and 39-46 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Abdel-Malik, Shaw, Cherukuri
or Cook is reversed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007