Appeal No. 2005-1582
Application No. 09/682,176
We agree with the Examiner’s obviousness determination. Appellants’
arguments are not persuasive. (Brief, pp. 6-8). Appellants have not addressed the
Examiner’s reasons for citing the Cherukuri and Athanikar references. Rather,
Appellants provide their own analysis of the cited references and conclude that there is
no motivation to combine the references.
Appellants’ argument regarding the non-homologous distribution of the gum
particles and tableting media are not persuasive of patentability. As stated above,
Ream exemplifies gum chips having a size of 0.5 to 6 mm mixed with powdered
confection. As such, the size of the gum chips is larger than the particles of the
powdered confection. Based upon the description appearing in the specification (cited
above), Ream (like Cherukuri) contains a non-homogenous blend of powder confection
and gum chips because the gum chips have a larger average particle size than the
average particle size of the powder confection.
Moreover, the addition of the teachings of the Ream and Athanikar references to
the teachings of Cherkuri, do not detract from our determination that the subject matter
of independent claims 1, 12 and 15 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art over the teachings of Cherukuri alone discussed above.
Claims 8, 16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cherukuri in view of Ream. Appellants in the Brief did not present
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007