Appeal No. 2006-0228
Application No. 10/158,028
specifically mention mints or mint tablets. Aylward supplies
that deficiency and we conclude that the combined teachings of
the applied references would have rendered the subject matter of
claim 9 on appeal obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of appellants’ invention. Thus, the examiner’s
rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Omata in view of Mahaffey and Aylward is
sustained.
Since each of the § 103 rejections before us on appeal has
been sustained, it follows that the decision of the examiner is
affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007