Appeal No. 2005-1949
Application No. 09/829,168
Claim 5 reads as follows:
5. The method of claim 1 in which said composition
comprises about 19% carbohydrates.
Claim 11 reads as follows:
11. The method of claim 1 in which said composition
contains from about 27 to 37% by weight fatty acids.
Claim 12 reads as follows:
12. The method of claim 1 in which said composition
contains from about 15 to 25% by weight essential amino acids.
The examiner has found that optimizing the amount of each
component would require only routine experimentation by one
reasonably skilled in the art. (Rejection, October 31, 2003,
page 6, lines 5-6).
The Appellant has not contested this finding. Rather, the
appellant asserts that the examiner has failed to provide any
rationale for the rejection (Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 7-8).
The appellant also points to 4 specific embodiments which do not
fall within the claims as “antithetical”. (Id.).
We disagree. The examiner has observed, correctly, that
this appears to be optimization of the content of each component.
As noted above, where general conditions of the appealed claim
are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007