Appeal No. 2005-2629
Application No. 10/377,474
Appellants also contend that "given the fact that soy
protein is only an optional ingredient, such option suggests that
the levels of the soy protein in Cope may not effect [sic,
affect] the stability of the composition" (page 11 of principal
brief, third paragraph). However, as noted by the examiner, Cope
exemplifies an aqueous emulsion comprising soy protein.
Appellants rely upon Examples 3 and 4 of the present
specification to demonstrate that soy protein does not exhibit an
anti-oxidative effect in all compositions. Example 3 shows that
soy protein has no anti-oxidative effect when added to bulk oil
rather than an emulsion, whereas Example 4 "shows that the soy
protein has limited antioxidative effect without naturally
occurring isoflavones" (page 3 of Reply Brief, last paragraph).
However, these examples are not probative to the issue of whether
the soy protein of Cope exhibits an anti-oxidative effect on the
disclosed aqueous emulsions which comprise omega-3 poly-
unsaturated lipids.
Turning to the § 103 rejection of claims 1-18 over Cope in
view of Chang, it logically follows that our rationale in support
of sustaining the examiner's § 102 rejection over Cope is also
applicable to affirming the examiner's § 103 rejection.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007