Appeal 2006-1981
Application 10/284,837
and col. 10, ll. 26-36 of Witzel and col. 9, l. 61 through col. 10, l. 8 and
column 10, lines 46-49 of Friello. Thus, both Witzel and Friello describe
that fumaric acid, in insoluble form, is an alternative to an encapsulated
soluble acid. Thus, these embodiments of Witzel and Friello refute
Appellants’ arguments that the applied references do not each describe use
of a solid acid mixed with the required mineral in a delivery agent (gum
base).2
Moreover, we observe that Appellants’ specification discloses that the
active components of the mineral delivery system may be encapsulated
(Specification 6). Also, see appealed dependent claim 15. Therefore,
Appellants’ argued distinction concerning segregation of the gum base
components of the applied references via encapsulation is not persuasive of a
product difference. In this regard, Appellants’ representative claim 1 does
not preclude encapsulation or coating of the acid or the mineral salt.
As for the separate anticipation rejection of claim 26, we agree with
the Examiner that use of a gum base including the acid/mineral component
combination described in Witzel or Friello would result in release of mineral
components as claimed. Appellants make no additional arguments against
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of this claim.
For the reasons stated above and in the Answer, we shall sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejections.
2 At page 4, second paragraph and in the sentence bridging pages 5 and 6 of
their Specification, Appellants list fumaric acid as one of several solid
organic acids useful in their invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007