Appeal No. 2006-0442 Page 6
Application No. 10/123,142
composition taught by Zerbe. Zerbe expresses a preference for cellulose derivatives
such as hydroxypropyl cellulose, and suggests that “[o]ther optional polymers” could also
be added. See column 2, lines 38-47. The listed polymers do not include any starches
or modified starches.
Leung expresses a preference for pullulan in the disclosed films and suggests that
“[t]he film . . . can further comprise . . . additional film-forming agents,” among other
things. See column 5, lines 14-22. The film-forming agents taught by Leung include all
of the optional polymers suggested by Zerbe, and also include “amylose, high amylose
starch, hydroxypropylated high amylose starch, dextrin, pectin, chitin, chitosan, levan,
elsinan, collagen, gelatin, zein, gluten, soy protein isolate, whey protein isolate, casein,
and mixtures thereof.” Column 4, line 64 to column 5, line 8.
Thus, Zerbe suggests addition of any of fourteen “optional polymers” in the
disclosed, hydroxypropyl cellulose-containing composition, none of which is a modified
starch, while Leung discloses thirty-three film-forming agents, expresses a preference for
pullulan, and suggests that the film-forming agents can be used in combination. The
examiner has pointed to nothing in either reference that would have led those skilled in
the art to single out the only modified starch listed by Leung as a film-forming agent and
combine that modified starch with the Zerbe’s composition.
We conclude that the examiner has not adequately explained why the cited
references would have suggested the instantly claimed composition to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. We therefore reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-10, 31, 33,
and 35-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007