Appeal 2007-1907
Reexamination Control No. 90/007,178
Patent 6,730,333 B1
1 43. The Examiner has found that the combined references taught that the
2 pericarp from fruit of Garcinia mangostana L. was known for therapeutic
3 purposes but had an unpleasant taste. (Answer, p. 5, ll. 4-6).
4 44. The Examiner found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
5 recognized that the good tasting fruit of mangosteen, in combination with
6 another fruit or vegetable juice, would mask a bitter tasting ingredient, such
7 as mangosteen rind (Answer, p. 6)..
8 45. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
9 ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the
10 mangosteen rind, which has known medicinal qualities, with the known
11 good tasting fruit of mangosteen and another fruit or vegetable juice to cover
12 up the bad taste of the rind. (Answer, p. 6, ll. 6-13).
13 The Appellants’ Arguments on 35 USC § 103
14 46. The Appellants urges four specific grounds of error. (Br. p. 15, ll. 19-
15 20).
16 47. First, the Appellants urge that the Examiner has failed to show a
17 suggestion or motivation to combine the references, including disregarding a
18 negative teaching in the record. (Br. p. 15, ll. 21-24).
19 48. Second, the Appellants urge that the rejection is based on hindsight,
20 alleging the Examiner used the present invention as a template. (Br. p. 15, ll.
21 25-26).
22 49. Third, the Appellants urge that the rejection fails to show a reasonable
23 expectation of success in the prior invention. (Br. p. 16, ll. 1-2).
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013