Appeal No. 2006-0356 2
Application No. 10/228,742
1. A rolled edible thin film product comprising:
a container housing a rolled edible thin film; and
the rolled edible thin film comprising a body comprising a film-former substrate designed to
adhere to at least a portion of an oral cavity of a consumer and dissolve in less than 20
seconds in the oral cavity, the body designed to be segmented by a consumer into a
plurality of pieces that can be separately placed in the oral cavity of the consumer.
After having carefully reviewed the examiner’s answer and the appellants’ brief, we
find that the issues presented are not ripe for a decision on the merits for the following
reasons:
First, we note that the examiner has rejected all of the appealed claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness based upon a combination of four references: Leung et
al., Ream et al., Zerbe et al., and Stewart.
It is our view that appellants did not have sufficient notice that Zerbe et al. and
Stewart would be relied upon by the examiner on appeal since those two references were
not included in the statement of rejection in the final rejection; and the examiner should
have indicated that the rejection being applied in the answer is a new ground of rejection.
Second, we find that the reasons given by the examiner for combining all four
references are unclear and confusing.
The examiner should clearly state which specific features in each reference are
being relied upon, point out how those features relate to elements recited in appellants’
claims, and clearly explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to combine the features disclosed in the references.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007