Appeal No. 2006-2604 Page 7
Application No. 10/253,066
extrusion. We agree with the examiner that the cited references would have suggested
this additional limitation.
The references show that including an encapsulated high potency sweetener in
chewing gum was conventional in the art. For example, Luo teaches chewing gum
compositions comprising high potency sweeteners. See page 20, line 15 to page 21,
line 30. Luo also teaches providing sweeteners in encapsulated form. See
page 23, lines 25-33. Song teaches that the fiber-extrusion method of making
encapsulated agents is applicable to high intensity sweeteners, among other things.
See col. 4, lines 21-22. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to encapsulate both a high potency sweetener and an acyclic carboxamide,
using Song’s method, and to include the encapsulated composition in a chewing gum
formulation.
Appellants argue that the references do not suggest encapsulating high potency
sweeteners but, as noted above, Luo suggests encapsulating sweeteners and Song
expressly suggests encapsulating high intensity sweeteners using the disclosed
method. The rejection of claim 18 is affirmed.
3. Claims 2, 8-15, 19-23, and 26-30
Claims 2, 8-15, 19-23, and 26-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Luo, Rowsell, and Yatka.4 Claim 2 is directed to a method of making
chewing gum comprising encapsulating an acyclic carboxamide, encapsulating that
product with a second, different encapsulating agent, and adding the twice-encapsulated
acyclic carboxamide to a chewing gum formulation.
4 Yatka et al., WO 90/11020, published October 4, 1990.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007