Appeal No. 2003-1721 Page 7
Application No. 09/226,143
from the licorice extract by distillation (Takagaki, p. 4, ll. 3-5). Second, while Embodiments 2
and 3 (Takagaki, pp. 6-7) list water and ethanol solution, respectively, in the carotenoid pigment
solutions, those embodiments do not discuss the order to mixing: There is no evidence that water
is added to a carotenoid/water-miscible solvent solution.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of claims 6-17.
OTHER ISSUES
The application file contains an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on
January 25, 2002. The Examiner should note that the documents furnished in the IDS are the
documents underlying the Statements in the Specification at page 1, lines 26-36 upon which the
Examiner has relied upon to reject the claims. We note that the documents are prior art and have
greater evidentiary value than a summary of their contents in the Applicants’ own specification.
Yet, it is unclear whether the Examiner considered these important documents as the PTO-1449
submitted with the IDS has not been initialed and signed by the Examiner nor are reasons given
in the next Office Action for refusing consideration. Upon return of the Application to the
jurisdiction of the Examiner, it is suggested that the Examiner follow the procedures outlined in
MPEP § 609 with regard to the IDS.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007