Appeal No. 2006-1226 Page 8
Application No. 10/272,382
provided no evidence to show that the method disclosed in the Gramaccioli references
does not produce the complexes that were said to result.
Finally, Appellants argue that the Gramaccioli references do not provide “any
analytical detail to determine or prove to one of ordinary skill whether these crystals
were pure or homogeneous.” Appeal Brief, page 6; Abdel-Monem declaration, ¶¶ 5, 6,
and 8.
As discussed above, however, the instant claims are directed to metal-amino
acid complexes per se. Therefore, they are anticipated by prior art disclosure of any
amount of the claimed complex, in any degree of purity.
We agree with the examiner that the Gramaccioli references reasonably appear
to disclose complexes within the scope of instant claim 1. Appellants have not provided
sufficient evidence to the contrary. We therefore affirm the rejection of claim 1. Claims
2-5 and 7-9 fall with claim 1 because they were not argued separately.
3. Obviousness
The examiner rejected claims 6, 10, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of either of the Gramaccioli references and Wagner.4 The examiner
reasoned the Wagner teaches a composition for oral hygiene containing copper salts,
including copper salts of amino acids such as glutamate or aspartate, and (in the case
4 Wagner, U.S. Patent 4,824,661, issued April 25, 1989
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007