Appeal No. 2005-2436
Application No. 09/827,686
Appellants submit that "[c]laims 1, 4-6 and 9 stand as one
embodiment of the invention," and that "[c]laims 18, 22-23 and 26
stand as a second embodiment of the invention" (page 6 of
principal brief). However, the Argument section of appellants'
brief fails to set forth an argument that is reasonably specific
to any particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, the groups of
claims separately rejected by the examiner stand or fall
together. For instance, the separate § 102/§ 103 rejections over
Finberg and Aebi stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the prior
art, as well as her cogent disposition of the arguments raised by
appellants. Accordingly, we will adopt the examiner's reasoning,
as stated in the Answer, as our own in sustaining the rejections
of record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
Concerning the § 102/§ 103 rejection of claim 1 over
Finberg, appellants contend that, whereas Finberg uses papaya
leaves in addition to cabbage leaves in making a satisfactory
chewing tobacco/snuff replacement, appellants' claimed
composition "is 100% cabbage leaves" (page 2 of Reply Brief,
second paragraph). However, the examiner properly explains that
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007