Appeal No. 2006-2604 Page 10
Application No. 10/253,066
Claim 11 is directed to the method of claim 2 but also requires that a high
potency sweetener be mixed with the acyclic carboxamide prior to encapsulation. 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 (page 20, line 15 to page 21, line 30)
and teaches providing sweeteners in encapsulated form (page 23, lines 25-33). Yatka
teaches chewing gum containing encapsulated Alitame. Yatka also teaches that
“improved stability of sweetener [i.e., Alitame] is obtained in multistep processes.” Page
7, lines 2-3. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to
encapsulate both Alitame and an acyclic carboxamide, using a standard, multistep
coating process in order to double-encapsulate both the Alitame and acyclic
carboxamide, and to include the twice-encapsulated composition in a chewing gum
formulation.
Appellants argue that “there is no suggestion [in Luo] that the high-potency
sweetener should have its release rate modified. Thus there would be no reason to mix
the high-potency sweetener in with an acyclic carboxamide before . . . encapsulating the
acyclic carboxamide.” Appeal Brief, page 10.
As discussed above, the teachings of the references must be considered as a
whole, not piecemeal. Yatka discusses at length the reason for encapsulating Alitame
before including it in chewing gum. See page 6: Alitame has been found to degrade in
sugarless gums that also contain sugar alcohols and Alitame releases very quickly
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007