Appeal 2006-2130
Application 10/236,111
Appellant’s invention is directed to a sterol ester composition, a
confectionary product containing such a composition, and a method for
producing such a composition. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A composition comprising a steryl ester, wherein the sterol moiety
of said steryl ester is a phytosterol and the ester moiety of said steryl ester
comprises a blend of fatty acids, wherein said blend of fatty acids comprises
at least 80% oleic acid.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
Schul US 2002/0016317 Feb. 7, 2002
Daniel Swern, Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products, Vol. 1, 4th edition,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 370 (1979)
Dimitrios Boskus, Olive Oil Chemistry and Technology, AOCS, Press,
Champaign, Illinois, p. 52-53 (1996)
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over Schul as further evidenced by Baileys and Olive Oil
Chemistry.1
OPINION
We have reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for patentability.
However, we are in agreement with the Examiner that the claimed subject
1 The Examiner omits an introductory sentence listing the rejected claims (by
claim number) and identifying the references relied upon in the statement of
the rejection in the Answer. However, that error is harmless in that
Appellant recognizes the evidence relied upon by the examiner in the Brief
and Appellant identifies claims 1-20 as the claims subject to the sole ground
of rejection before us on appeal. Moreover, the Examiner furnishes a listing
of the relied upon evidence at page 3 of the Answer that corresponds with
the evidence referred to by Appellants and is the same evidence employed in
the final Office action rejection and the body of the rejection in the Answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007