Appeal No. 2006-0230 Page 8
Application No. 09/864,083
not necessarily or inherently possess the same pH as appellants’ claimed
composition.
Accordingly, for the same reasons as set forth above, we affirm the
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Gordon. As
set forth above, claim 3 falls together with claim 2.
Claims 11-13 and 19-23:
According to appellants (Brief, page 8), claims 11-13, 19 and 20-23 recite
additional limitations which are not taught by Gordon. For clarity, we note that
claims 11-13, 19 and 20 ultimately depend from and further limit the composition
of claim 1 to include as a further ingredient the water-soluble antioxidant sodium
metabisulfite.3 Claim 21 depends from and further limits claim 1 to a composition
“wherein the cationic salt comprises an amino acyl derivative.” Claim 22
depends from and further limits the cationic salt of claim 21 to one that
“comprises an aminopropyl ascorbyl phosphate.” Claim 23 depends from and
further limits claim 1 to a composition “wherein the cationic salt comprises a
sodium ascorbyl phosphate.”
3 In addition, we note that claims 19 and 20 limit the cationic salt of the composition set forth in
claim 1, to one that “comprises magnesium ascorbyl phosphate.” However, since appellants do
not address this limitation we will not discuss it further.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007