Appeal 2006-2468
Application 10/149,875
§ 103(a) REJECTION
Appellants present two groups of claims in the arguments furnished in
the Briefs: I. Claims 1, 2, and 9-18; and II. Claims 3-6, 8, 19-22, 25-40,
42-53, 60, and 62-69.
Appellants do not argue the appealed claims within each claim
grouping separately. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of the
first claim grouping and claim 3 as representative of the second claim
grouping. We consider representative claims 1 and 3 separately to the extent
the claim groupings are separately argued with respect to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection.3
Seiden discloses a reduced calorie fat composition including a PFAP
component and a RCT component that embraces the PFAP and RCT
3 Claim 7 stands objected to by the Examiner as containing allowable subject
matter in a claim that depends from a rejected base claim. However,
rejected claim 8 depends from claim 7. In light of this anomaly, clarification
of the record is required prior to final disposition of this application. The
Examiner should revisit non-rejected claims 7, 23, 24, 41, and 61 vis-a-vis
the prior art of record. See, e.g., column 5, lines 45-62, column 6, lines 20-
26, and column 9, lines 7-11 of Seiden. If the Examiner maintains a position
in favor of the patentability of these claims, the Examiner should initiate a
record clarification by providing fully developed written reasoning in
support of such determination. If the Examiner decides to introduce a
ground of rejection pertaining to any of these currently objected to claims as
a result of undertaking this clarification task, the Examiner must reopen
prosecution to do so. The Examiner should, of course, obtain any approval
that may be required under current examination procedures prior to entering
any rejection of claims 7, 23, 24, 41, and 61.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007