Ex Parte Wortzman et al - Page 2


                   Appeal No.  2006-0230                                                                Page 2                    
                   Application No.  09/864,083                                                                                    
                          11. The composition of claim 9 wherein the antioxidant comprises sodium                                 
                               metabisulfite.                                                                                     
                          19. The composition of claim 9 wherein the antioxidant comprises sodium                                 
                               metabisulfite and the cationic salt comprises magnesium ascorbyl                                   
                               phosphate.                                                                                         
                          21. The composition of claim 1 wherein the cationic salt comprises an                                   
                               amino acyl derivative.                                                                             
                          23. The composition of claim 1 wherein the cationic salt comprises a                                    
                               sodium ascorbyl phosphate.                                                                         

                          The references relied upon by the examiner are:                                                         
                   Gordon    5,932,612    Aug. 3, 1999                                                                            
                   Lukenbach    5,980,871    Nov. 9, 1999                                                                         

                                                GROUNDS OF REJECTION                                                              
                          Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious                                    
                   over Gordon.                                                                                                   
                          Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over                                
                   the combination of Lukenbach and Gordon.                                                                       
                          We affirm the rejection of claims 1-10 and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)                               
                   as being obvious over Gordon.  In addition, we affirm the rejection of claims 1-9                              
                   under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Lukenbach                                    
                   and Gordon.  We reverse the rejection of claims 11-13 and 19-23 under 35                                       
                   U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Gordon.                                                                  












Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007