Appeal No. 2006-0442 Page 9
Application No. 10/123,142
same, and require different physical properties, such that the use of maltrodextrin [sic] on
a protective film coating on a particulate core material would not be considered relevant
to those skilled in the art attempting to make a rapidly disintegrating free standing film.”
Appeal Brief, page 10.
We will reverse this rejection as well. We will assume that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious, based on Leung, to make an edible film
comprising hydroxypropyl cellulose, a surfactant, and a flavoring agent. That
composition differs from the one defined by claim 2 because claim 2 requires that the
composition also contain maltodextrin.
Cherukuri teaches that maltodextrin is one of a number of hydrocolloids that can
be used to form either the core or encapsulating matrix (col. 8, lines 40-55) of a spray-
dried flavor-delivery system (col. 5, lines 28-38) in which the “encapsulating matrix
protects the flavor in the core and permits higher concentrations of flavor to be included
without imparting bitterness” (col. 5, lines 15-17). Cherukuri teaches that the disclosed
flavor delivery system is “a particulate free-flowing material” (col. 6, lines 53-55) that is
suitable for use in “hard and soft candies, chewing gums and particularly, low calorie, low
moisture formulations” (col. 6, lines 4-6).
The examiner has not adequately explained how the cited references would have
suggested the claimed composition. In particular, the examiner has not adequately
explained what would have led a skilled worker to choose maltodextrin from the list of
twenty-six specific hydrocolloids taught by Cherukuri, and then combine either
maltodextrin itself or maltodextrin-containing flavor delivery particles with a rapidly
dissolving film such as that taught by Leung.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007