Appeal 2007-1615
Application 10/693,442
claims 1, 2, 35, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tulp,
Barnett, Habeck, Kahn, or Van Heerden is affirmed.
II. Claims 1, 2, 7, 35, and 364 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tulp, Barnett, Habeck, Kahn, or Van Heerden, in view of
Fleischner.
The Examiner relies on Fleischner as disclosing additional “weight-
loss compositions comprising conventional art-recognized ingredients
commonly employed therein such as glucosamine, caffeine, green tea
extract, ma huang (ephedra/ephedrine), chromium, and/or vanadium”
(Answer 7), and contends that it would have been obvious to combine
Hoodia with these additional ingredients “for their known benefit” (id.).
Appellant’s arguments with respect to this ground of rejection are
essentially the same as for the previous rejection, and are not persuasive for
the reasons discussed above.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 35 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Tulp, Barnett, Habeck, Kahn, or Van Heerden, in view of
Fleischner is affirmed.
4 The Examiner listed the claims subject to this rejection as claims 1, 2, 7-9,
35 and 36, but according to Appellant, claims 8 and 9 have been canceled
(Br. 1).
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013