Appeal No. 2005-2629
Application No. 10/377,474
Appealed claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Cope. Claims 1-18 also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cope in view
of Chang. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cope in view of either Blauel
alone, or in further combination with Chang.
Appellants do not separately argue any of the claims on
appeal. Accordingly, claims 1-18 stand or fall with claim 1, and
claims 19-20 stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we find that the examiner's
rejections are well-founded and in accordance with current patent
jurisprudence. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer,
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the examiner's § 102 rejection over Cope.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual determination
that Cope, like appellants, describes an aqueous emulsion
comprising an omega-3 polyunsaturated lipid and soy protein, nor
do appellants challenge the examiner's calculations which
demonstrate that the emulsions of Cope comprise concentrations of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007