Appeal No. 2006-2604 Page 9
Application No. 10/253,066
with a first encapsulating agent and fluid bed coating the resulting product with a second
encapsulating agent. The references would have suggested a two-step encapsulation
process because Yatka teaches that it is a standard coating technique used for other
chewing gum ingredients (e.g., Alitame).
It would also have been obvious to include the twice-encapsulated acyclic
carboxamide in a chewing gum formulation as taught by Luo, because Luo teaches that
an encapsulated carboxamide provides a chewing gum with a delayed release cooling
composition. Thus, the method of claim 2 would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants argue that “Alitame is a high-intensity sweetener. Acrylic [sic, acyclic]
carboxamides are physiological cooling agents. Since the two materials have
completely different uses in chewing gum, it would not have been obvious to treat them
the same way.” Appeal Brief, page 9.
This argument is not persuasive. Luo teaches that substituted carboxamides are
cooling agents that can be encapsulated “using conventional procedures” and included
in chewing gum. See page 8, lines 30-33. Yatka teaches that “standard coating
techniques” include “multistep processes like spray drying . . . and then fluid-bed
coating or agglomeration of the resultant powder.” Page 7, lines 3-7. Appellants have
pointed to no evidence that those skilled in the art would have considered Yatka’s
“standard coating techniques” to be inapplicable to cooling agents such as Rowsell’s
acyclic carboxamides. Therefore, the evidence of record supports the examiner’s
position. The rejection of claim 2 is affirmed. Claims 8-10, 12-15, 19-23, and 26-30 fall
with claim 2.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007