Appeal No. 2005-0027
Application No. 09/777,874
claims 25-30 each individually. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
DISCUSSION
35 U.S.C. §103(a)
Claims 11-18, 20-27 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), as obvious
over Hastings in view of Wiegand or Burtle, by themselves or in combination. Claims
28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), as obvious over Wiegand in view of
Moffett or Hastings by itself or in view of Wiegand or Burtle individually or in
combination, both as set forth above, further in view of Cavazza.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is well-established that the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie obvious must be supported by
evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual to
combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See
In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
According to the examiner, “Hastings teaches dry formulations containing
calcium salt of hydroxy citric acid, L-carnitine salt, Chromium, antioxidants and other
components for weight loss. ... Hastings does not teach acetyl-carnitine.” Answer, page
6. The examiner finds it would have been obvious to an artisan to use various forms of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007