Appeal 2006-1981
Application 10/284,837
person’s oral cavity. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are illustrative and reproduced
below:
1. A mineral delivery system comprising:
a mineral delivery agent comprising a water-insoluble mineral salt and
a solid acid mixed together, the mineral delivery agent delivering a water-
soluble mineral component in a person’s mouth.
10. A mineral delivery system comprising a gum including a water-
soluble mineral carbonate and a solid acid mixed together, the gum releasing
one or more water-soluble mineral components into an individual’s oral
cavity during chewing of the gum.
19. A method of releasing one or more minerals into an individual’s
oral cavity, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a mineral delivery agent including a water-soluble mineral
salt and a solid acid mixed together;
placing the mineral delivery agent in the individual’s oral cavity; and
releasing a water-soluble mineral component into the oral cavity.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting
the claims:
Friello US 4,208,431 Jun. 17, 1980
Witzel US 4,238,475 Dec. 9, 1980
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14, 16-20, and 22-25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, as unpatentable over
Friello or Witzel. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, as unpatentable over Friello or Witzel in
a new ground of rejection set forth in the Answer. Claims 7-9, 15, and 21
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007