Appeal No. 2006-2467 Page 8
Application No. 10/157,644
regard, we suggest that the examiner obtain the entire reference, as “[c]itation of
and reliance upon an abstract is generally inappropriate where both the abstract
and the underlying document are prior art.” MPEP §706.02 (II) (8th edition,
Revision 2, May 2004). Moreover, in order for meaningful appellate review to
occur, the examiner must present a full and reasoned explanation of the rejection
see, e.g., In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1342, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1432 (Fed. Cir.
2002), and that would include analysis of the full underlying document.
The Van de Ven reference teaches looks at the effects of preloads of
fructose administered 30 or 60 minutes before lunch on food intake and ratings of
hunger in women. Note that the recitation of “[a] method for blunting the
postprandial glycemic response to a meal” in claim 1 is a statement of intended
use, and not a patentable limitation, as the body of the claim sets forth the
complete invention. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 182 F.2d
1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-66 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“If . . . the body of the
claim fully and intrinsically sets forth the complete invention, including all of the
limitations, and the preamble offers no distinct definition of the claimed
invention’s limitations, but merely states, for example, the purpose of the
intended use of the invention, then the preamble is of no significance to claim
construction because it cannot be said to constitute or explain a claim
limitation.”). All that is therefore required by each of the independent claims is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007