Appeal No. 2005-2629
Application No. 10/377,474
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 19 and 20 over the
combined teachings of Cope, Blauel and Chang, we agree with the
examiner that Blauel evidences the obviousness of using soy
protein in the claimed range of about 0.5 to about 5% of the
emulsion. Blauel discloses concentrations of soy protein within
the claimed range which stabilize an aqueous emulsion comprising
nutritionally desirable omega-3 fatty acids. Accordingly, we
concur with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have found it obvious to use the claimed amounts of soy
protein in the aqueous emulsions of Cope for the purpose of
stabilizing the emulsions. It is not necessary for a finding of
obviousness that the prior art also teach the effect of reducing
the rate of oxidation of the omega-3 polyunsaturated lipids.
Appellants have not established that the prior art use of soy
protein to stabilize the emulsion would not also bring about the
anti-oxidant effect. Appellants' argument that Blauel does not
teach that the soy protein isolate would be effective as an anti-
oxidant does not address the thrust of the examiner's rejection.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007