Appeal No. 2005-1582
Application No. 09/682,176
separate arguments for patentability of these claims. However, in the Reply Brief the
Appellants argue that Ream does not disclose a tableted gum and is therefore the
combination of Ream and Cherukuri is not appropriate. (Reply Brief, pp 2-3).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive for the reasons stated above in our discussion
of the Ream and Cherukuri references.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer, giving due weight to
Appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs in
favor of affirming the Examiner’s rejections. Accordingly, the Examiner's rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are affirmed.
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007