Ex Parte Zasloff et al - Page 7


              Appeal No. 2007-0055                                                                 Page 7                
              Application No. 10/053,299                                                                                 

              Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting from                        
              In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971).  See also In re                         
              Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1365, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2007 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  Once the                              
              Examiner has satisfied this duty, the burden shifts to Appellant to provide evidence to                    
              the contrary.  In this case, the question boils down to whether the Examiner provided                      
              sufficient reason to believe that Pederson’s metal amino acid chelate solution                             
              necessarily would block microbial adherence when in contact with the mouth oral cavity.                    
                     To reach this question, we must first determine whether Pederson’s metal amino                      
              acid chelate meets the limitation in claim 1 of a composition “consisting essentially of an                
              amino acid component” which is an isoleucine stereoisomer or an active analog of it.                       
                     The Examiner asserts that Pederson’s metal amino acid chelate meets the amino                       
              acid component requirement of the claim because “the amino acids are present in the                        
              metal chelates.”  Answer 7: 13-14.  We do not concur with this conclusion because the                      
              isoleucine provided by Pederson is in the form of a chelate in which the amino acid is                     
              joined to the metal ion by “coordinate covalent bonds.”  Pederson, column 3, lines 65-                     
              67.  It is not isoleucine, but isoleucine attached to a metal ion.  “Special processing must               
              be performed to create a stable (covalent) bond” of the type found in its chelate.  Id.,                   
              column 4, lines 24-25.  Thus, we do not consider it to satisfy the claim limitation that the               
              component be an isoleucine or a stereoisomer of it.                                                        
                     However, claim 1 permits the amino acid component to be an active analog of                         
              isoleucine.  The specification does not provide a definition of isoleucine analogs, or give                
              guidance on what is encompassed by the term.  In examining the claims of an                                
              application, the PTO is permitted to adopt “the broadest reasonable meaning of the                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013